
Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Advertisement
Those who have sued Sig Sauer in New Hampshire and elsewhere include police, federal law enforcement officers, and other experienced gun users from multiple states who say they were wounded by the gun.
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The manufacturer has prevailed in some cases. It is appealing two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
George Abrahams a U.S. Army veteran and painting contractor in Philadelphia who won his case, said he had holstered his P320, put it in the pocket of his athletic pants and zipped it up before going downstairs.
'All I did was come down the stairway and there was a loud explosion, and then the excruciating pain and bleeding,' he told The Associated Press in 2022. He said the bullet tore through his right thigh.
The company, which employs over 2,000 people in a state with permissive gun laws, says the P320 has internal safety mechanisms and 'has undergone the most rigorous testing and evaluation of any firearm, by military and law enforcement agencies around the world.' It says the problem is user error or incompatible holsters, not the design.
Advertisement
'Do you want people to be able to sue car manufacturers because they sell cars that don't have air conditioning?' state Rep. Terry Roy, a Republican from Deerfield, told the House during debate in May.
Opponents criticized the bill as a special exemption in liability law that has never been granted to any other New Hampshire company.
'I think there is a difference between helping out a large employer and creating an exemption that actually hurts people and doesn't give them their day in court,' state Rep. David Meuse, a Democrat from Portsmouth, said in an interview. His district covers Newington, where Sig Sauer is headquartered.
A 2005 federal law gives the gun industry broad legal immunity. New Hampshire was already among 32 states that have adopted gun immunity laws in some form, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Some states also have repealed gun industry immunity statutes or weakened them.
Sig Sauer seeks help
A Sig Sauer executive asked New Hampshire lawmakers for help in April, two weeks after a Pennsylvania-based law firm filed its most recent lawsuit in federal court in Concord on March 26 over the design of the P320. The firm represents over 100 people who have filed such lawsuits, including more than 70 in New Hampshire.
'We're fighting all these court cases out of town and every single court case we have to fight takes away money from Granite State residents and workers that we can employ and technology,' testified Bobby Cox, vice president of governmental affairs for the company.
Advertisement
The measure took effect once Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed it on May 23. Legislators said it doesn't apply to the current lawsuits. However, lawyers for Sig Sauer mentioned it as part of their argument to dismiss the March case or break up and transfer the claims of 22 plaintiffs to court districts where they live. A hearing on the matter is set for July 21.
Ayotte's office did not respond to an AP request seeking comment, but it told The Keene Sentinel that she's 'proud to protect New Hampshire companies that create thousands of good-paying jobs from frivolous lawsuits.'
'Out-of-state trial lawyers looking to make money will not find a venue in New Hampshire,' Ayotte's office said in an emailed statement to the newspaper.
Robert Zimmerman, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in Pennsylvania, said the goal of the lawsuits is to get the weapon's design changed so that it's safe for the people who use it.
New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, Zimmerman said. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord.
'Sig is trying to strategically decentralize this case and make every client go to 100 different courthouses and slow down the process for both sides to get a just outcome, which is a trial that is decided on the merits,' Zimmerman said in an interview.
Sig Sauer gets protection
The lawsuits accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design and marketing and negligence.
During the House debate, Roy said he owns a P320 and it's one of his favorite guns, 'but you can buy them with or without safeties.'
Advertisement
The plaintiffs say 'the vast majority' of P320 models sold don't come with the safety, 'even as an option.'
Sig Sauer says some users prefer the faster draw time granted by the absence of an external safety; others want the feature for added security.
Sig Sauer offered a 'voluntary upgrade' in 2017 to include an alternate design that reduces the weight of the trigger, among other features. The plaintiffs' lawyers say the upgrade did not stop unintentional discharges.
States, industries and immunity
'It's not a great look' when a manufacturer can carve out a statutory exemption for itself, but it's also not unusual, said Daniel Pi, an assistant professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law.
In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill in 2023 following a deadly school shooting that gives gun and ammunition dealers, manufacturers and sellers additional protections against lawsuits. This year, Tennessee lawmakers passed another bill to further limit liability for gun companies.
In a different industry — pesticides — governors in North Dakota and Georgia signed laws this year providing legal protections to Bayer, the maker of Roundup, a popular weed killer. Bayer has been hit with 181,000 claims alleging that the key ingredient in Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer disputes those claims.
The Louisiana Legislature passed a bill that would protect nursing homes from most lawsuits and cap damages. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry hasn't acted on it yet.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California argues in court against Trump's National Guard deployment
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, to Newsom. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents in SUVs and cargo vans had gathered with their faces covered a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and his brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. 'All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Letting Transgender Kids Play Sports Benefits All Kids
Credit - Marc Elias—Getty Images President Donald Trump's raft of anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders affects many aspects of the lives of LGBTQ+ people, including their sports participation, access to healthcare, and ability to serve in the military. Advertisement One executive order seeking to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports, is surprisingly picking up some Democratic support. Recently, Senator Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona said banning trans students from girls' and women's school sports might be 'legitimate' and argued that trans girls put cisgender girls at risk during sporting events. However, this is a damaging myth that fuels anti-trans stigma, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination and reinforces misogynistic stereotypes that girls are weak and need protection. It's not the first time a Democrat has capitulated to Republican anti-trans messaging. In Oct. 2024, during his long-shot attempt to unseat Senator Ted Cruz in Texas, Democrat Colin Allred released a campaign ad in which he seemed to oppose the participation of trans girls in sports. And in March 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom, speaking on the first episode of his new podcast 'This Is Gavin Newsom,' said it was 'deeply unfair' for trans athletes to participate in women's sports. We are not totally naïve—we get why a handful of Democrats are joining Republicans in wanting to ban trans kids from participating in sports teams consistent with their gender identities. These democratic legislators likely think their stance will appeal to 'centrist' voters; recent public polling suggests that about two-thirds of U.S. adults support such bans. But we still firmly believe that such bans are misguided, harmful, and built on falsehoods, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and inequities. Democrats should not be willing to throw transgender kids under the bus just for electoral considerations. Trans kids face higher rates of multiple physical and mental health difficulties than their cis peers—largely due to how our society treats the transgender community. But when they're allowed to play sports, these rates fall. What's more, states with policies allowing trans girls to play sports have seen increased rates of sports participation by cis girls. In other words, letting trans girls play sports benefits all girls. Shouldn't politicians be championing the benefits of sport for all? Advertisement To understand why such bans are damaging, let's back up and consider the lives of trans youth. A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that there are about 300,100 trans kids (ages 13-17) in the U.S., making up just 1.4% of all youth in that age range. The Center for American Progress notes that trans youth face 'high rates of family rejection, violence, discrimination, and suicidality.' Suicidality is shockingly common: the Centers for Disease Control conducts a national survey of high school students every two years to explore health-related behaviors, called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), and the 2023 survey found that 53.8% of trans youth had seriously considered suicide, compared to 20.4% of the general youth population. Research has shown that trans kids are also at increased risk of depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and impaired quality of life. The good news is that sports can be a real lifeline. The research is clear: when trans youth are allowed to participate in sports, these mental health risks fall. For example, trans students in states with fully inclusive athletics policies are less likely to have considered suicide than students in states without such policies. Megan Bartlett, founder of the Chicago-based non-profit The Center for Healing and Justice Through Sport, told The Guardian that sports 'can be life-saving—especially for marginalized young people – because it can actually change your brain.' When kids are in sports teams, she said, the positive relationships help make them 'feel safe and practice being stressed but being able to deal with that stress,' which builds lifelong resilience. Trans kids at inclusive schools are also less likely to experience harassment and victimization. For all adolescents, participating in a sports team can reduce anxiety, depression, and feelings of loneliness. Letting trans kids play sports also improves their physical health. Trans kids have worse physical health than their peers—including higher rates of obesity and of risk factors for cardiovascular disease, like abnormal cholesterol levels—which are thought to be due to the stress of marginalization. But research has shown that playing sports lowers their risk of obesity and improves their cardiovascular health. The benefits go even further. Trans kids who are allowed to play sports in accordance with their gender identity are more likely to feel like they belong at school and more accepted by their peers. Sports help all kids gain skills in team building, management skills, commitment, and leadership. And there's even evidence that LGBTQ student athletes have higher grade point averages than those who do not play sports. Advertisement Unfortunately, several myths about trans student athletes are being promoted by supporters of school sports bans. We believe these need to be challenged. The first myth, pushed by Senator Gallego, is that anti-trans sports bans are needed to protect cisgender girls. There is no evidence that trans-inclusive policies are harmful to cis girls; indeed, trans boys and girls have been openly participating in high school sports for many years now, with no documented evidence of any harm to cis kids. States that have adopted inclusive policies have seen steady or increasing rates of participation by all youth. For example, California and Connecticut, which have allowed trans kids to play sports on the team of their choice, have seen participation of all girls increase. For instance in California, participation among girls in sports has increased by almost 14% from 2014 to 2020. The second myth, peddled by Governor Newsom, is that trans kids have an unfair advantage in sports. Trans kids vary enormously in their sporting ability, just like cis kids. Some play well and some play poorly, just like cis kids. Trans kids are all different heights, sizes, and strengths, just like cis kids. Whether any kid excels at sport is most often related to factors like how hard they train and what kind of access they have to good coaches. As the ACLU argues, when a trans kid does well at sport, they should be 'celebrated for their hard work, not demonized because of who they are.' Other myths abound. For instance, some conservative politicians and organizations push the fiction that massive numbers of trans kids are now 'dominating' high school sports. In reality, one study using CDC data found that only 40.7% of trans kids in grades nine through 12 played on at least one sports team. If we apply this percentage to the 300,100 trans kids aged 13-17 in the U.S., only 122,000 trans kids are playing sports out of a total of about 21 million kids in this age rage. This means that trans kids make up an extremely tiny fraction of those in sport. Advertisement Another false narrative claims that inclusive policies change the nature of girls' sports. But as the ACLU notes, that trans girls' 'participation in the girls' category does not change the nature of the category.' Inclusive policies do not undermine Title IX protections, and girls' sports have thrived in states that adopted such policies. This is why many women's rights advocacy groups support inclusion of trans people in sports. Trans kids just want the same opportunities as their peers. They want to be on sports teams to have fun, get exercise, and hang out with their friends. Just like any other kid. When we deny them that right, we are actively causing harm that could easily be avoided. And, in the end, this discriminatory behavior hurts us all. Contact us at letters@


Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Chris Brown pleads not guilty in London nightclub assault case as U.K. court sets trial date
Grammy-winning R&B star Chris Brown has pleaded not guilty to one charge connected to his alleged beating of a music producer in a London nightclub in 2023. The 'Kiss Kiss' singer, 36, appeared Friday in London's Southwark Crown Court for his arraignment where he pleaded not guilty to one count of attempting to unlawfully and maliciously cause grievous bodily harm with intent. 'Not guilty ma'am,' he responded when asked how he pleaded to the count. Prosecutors accuse Brown of attacking music producer Amadou 'Abe' Diaw with a bottle of tequila at Tape London, a nightclub, in February 2023. The accusations against Brown echo allegations from a civil lawsuit Diaw filed in Los Angeles against the musician in October 2023. He sued Brown for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming in court documents that the singer 'brutally assaulted' him by 'beating him over the head' and that he 'continued to ruthlessly stomp' on him as he lay unconscious on the nightclub floor after the bottle attack. London police arrested Brown in May on suspicion of the single bodily harm charge, but in a subsequent indictment, prosecutors added charges for assault causing actual bodily harm and having an offensive weapon, a bottle. Brown did not enter pleas on those additional counts but is due back in court in July. The 'Under the Influence' artist was released from police custody in mid-May after posting $6.7 million bail. His arrest initially posed a threat to his Breezy Bowl tour, which kicked off June 8 in Amsterdam. In an Instagram story shared after his release, Brown informed fans he would be going from 'cage to stage.' The singer's trial is set for Oct. 26, 2026. A representative for Brown did not immediately respond to The Times' request for comment. Musician and Brown friend Omololu Akinlolu ((who performs as HoodyBaby), 39, was charged with causing grievous bodily harm for his alleged involvement in the 2023 incident and pleaded not guilty during Friday's hearing. The Associated Press contributed to this report.