A Weapon Under Legal Siege
Let’s stop sugarcoating. The SIG Sauer P320 is not just “controversial.” It is a known legal liability, validated in multiple courts of law and now banned by training institutions that refuse to gamble with lives—or lawsuits.
In November 2024, a Philadelphia jury awarded $11 million, including $10 million in punitive damages, after a P320 discharged in its holster. More recently, additional juries have found the pistol defectively designed. Police academies in states like Washington have banned the P320 outright, and even lawmakers in Florida have called for suspensions pending safety reviews.
If you still choose to carry it, issue it, or allow it in your training programs, understand this: the full weight of civil and criminal law is now on notice. That means you can’t plead ignorance when something goes wrong.
The Civil Liability – You Will Pay
Civil courts deal in foreseeability. And after jury verdicts, academy bans, and manufacturer “voluntary upgrades,” the risks of the P320 are foreseeable, documented, and undeniable.
- Civilians: If your P320 discharges unintentionally and injures someone, expect a lawsuit where the plaintiff’s lawyer will wave those verdicts in front of a jury. You will be portrayed not as unlucky, but as reckless—because you knew this pistol’s history. Florida’s comparative negligence law means if you’re found even 51% at fault, you recover nothing in return suits.
- Agencies: If you authorize P320s for officers, you are wide open to negligent entrustment and failure-to-warn claims. Plaintiffs will point to other departments banning the pistol and ask the jury: “Why didn’t you?” That’s a million-dollar question you won’t like answering in court.
- Training providers & ranges: Allowing P320s on your line is like putting a “Sue Me” sign around your neck. If a discharge occurs, the waiver you had your student sign won’t shield you from a negligence claim. A judge will ask why you didn’t follow the lead of national academies and eliminate the risk altogether.
The Criminal Liability – You Could Lose Your Freedom
Civil court takes your money. Criminal court takes your freedom.
In Florida, a P320 “going off” in public can trigger charges under:
- F.S. 784.05 (Culpable Negligence): exposing others to harm through reckless disregard.
- F.S. 790.10 (Improper Exhibition of a Firearm): careless display of a firearm in the presence of others.
If a round injures or kills someone, you’re looking at felony-level consequences. Prosecutors don’t care about your badge, your agency, or your excuses. They care that you chose to carry a weapon with a paper trail of lawsuits and bans—and that choice makes you reckless in the eyes of the law.
The Manufacturer’s Shield Doesn’t Protect You
SIG Sauer has insisted, publicly and loudly: “The P320 cannot, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull.” Yet multiple juries disagreed, handing out multi-million-dollar verdicts against them.
Here’s the ugly truth: SIG will fight to protect its bottom line. They won’t be standing next to you in court when you’re the one being sued or charged. If you think their denials or “voluntary upgrade program” are going to save you, you’re delusional.
Training & Range Owners: Stop Playing with Fire
If you run courses, competitions, or manage a range, this is your wake-up call. The minute you let a P320 onto your line, you accept liability for every round it fires—intentionally or not.
The argument “students bring their own equipment, at their own risk” collapses the second a lawyer points to your duty of care as an instructor or facility. Your job is to identify and mitigate risk. Continuing to allow P320s is the opposite of that.
Ban it. Put it in writing. Stand by it. Anything less, and you’re gambling your business, your assets, and possibly your freedom.
Agencies: Your Officers Are One Discharge Away from a Federal Case
Departments that cling to the P320 are already being sued. In every deposition, attorneys will ask:
- “Were you aware that multiple academies banned the weapon?”
- “Did you review the $11M verdict?”
- “Why did you continue to authorize this pistol when alternatives were readily available?”
If your answer is “because SIG said it was safe,” congratulations—you just admitted negligence.
The Consequences of Inaction
This isn’t about brand wars or gun-forum debates. This is about liability. This is about the courtroom. This is about the difference between protecting lives and destroying careers.
If you carry the P320, you are betting your freedom and your finances against a growing mountain of legal precedent. If you allow it in your classroom, your range, or your agency, you’re not only exposing your people to physical danger—you’re setting them up for legal ruin.
The Bottom Line
You don’t need to wait for another verdict. The evidence is in. The bans are in place. The lawsuits are piling up.
If you value your students, your officers, your license, or your livelihood—stop carrying, issuing, or authorizing the P320.
Because when that gun discharges and someone bleeds, the question in court won’t be “Was it an accident?” It will be:
“Why did you ignore the warnings?”
And there is no good answer to that.
