Freedom Index
Listen to the article
Mr. Bagnell, an attorney, has allegedly represented clients against Sig Sauer in cases involving the P320 pistol since June 2017…. On or about March 7, 2025, Sig Sauer allegedly published a statement titled “The Truth About the P320” (the “Statement”) on its Instagram, Facebook, and public website. The Statement is allegedly as follows:
The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull – that is a fact. The allegations against the P320 are nothing more than individuals seeking to profit or avoid personal responsibility.
Recently, anti-gun groups, members of the mainstream media, trial attorneys, and other uninformed and agenda-driven parties have launched attacks on one of SIG SAUER’s most trusted, most tested, and most popular products – the P320 pistol. In all cases, these individuals have an ulterior motive behind their baseless allegations that the P320 can fire without a trigger pull; they have no evidence, no data and no empirical testing to support any of their claims. They instead choose to misrepresent clear, negligent discharges as a “design problem.”
In the decade since its introduction, the P320 has undergone the most rigorous testing and evaluation of any firearm, by military and law enforcement agencies around the world. It consistently delivers a proven record of performance and reliability through state-of-the-art engineering, and documented quality control at every stage of its production. Claims that unintended discharges are anything more than negligent handling and/or manufactured lies to support an anti-gun, anti-SIG agenda are false. Furthermore, lawsuits claiming that the P320 is capable of firing without the trigger being pulled have been dismissed in courtrooms around the country. In addition, multiple plaintiffs’ so-called experts have conceded, it is not possible for the P320 to discharge unless the trigger is fully actuated.
The rhetoric is high, and we can no longer stay silent while lawsuits run their course, and clickbait farming, engagement hacking grifters continue their campaign to highjack the truth for profit. Enough is enough.
From the courts of law to the court of public opinion we will combat the lies and misinformation with the truth. SIG SAUER stands behind the quality, safety, and design of all our products – especially the P320.
Industry, take notice; what’s happening today to SIG SAUER with the anti-gun mob and their lawfare tactics will happen tomorrow at another firearms manufacturer, and then another.
Today, for SIG SAUER – it ends.
At the time of publication, Sig Sauer was allegedly aware of the allegedly hundreds of incidents where the P320 discharged without a trigger pull. Sig Sauer also allegedly knew that courts had allegedly rejected the argument that it was impossible for the P320 to discharge without a trigger pull. Finally, Sig Sauer allegedly had, in its own internal documents, admitted to the potential for discharge without a trigger pull.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Statement is defamatory towards Mr. Bagnell as one of the “trial attorneys” who has represented clients against Sig Sauer in P320 litigation by characterizing him as dishonest and unethical….
Sig Sauer’s allegedly defamatory statements amount to accusing individuals who allege that the P320 discharges without a trigger pull of lying and as being motivated by “profit or [to] avoid personal responsibility.” See Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (“The allegations against the P320 are nothing more than individuals seeking to profit or avoid personal responsibility.”); id. (“Recently, anti-gun groups, members of the mainstream media, trial attorneys, and other uninformed and agenda-driven parties have launched attacks on … the P320 pistol. In all cases, these individuals have an ulterior motive behind their baseless allegations that the P320 can fire without a trigger pull[.]”).
Even if these statements are opinions, as Sig Sauer argues, these opinions may still be actionable because they “impl[y] that there are undisclosed defamatory facts which justify the opinion.” … [Here,] “a reasonable juror could find [the Statement] to be defamatory and either to be factual or to imply undisclosed defamatory facts.” The circumstances of a corporate press release, unlike for example a news article, may suggest a statement of opinion rather than factual evaluation.
Sig Sauer’s language, however, strongly suggests that the Statement is fact. The Statement begins with “[t]he P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull – that is a fact.” It continues by stating that those alleging claims against the P320 “have no evidence, no data and no empirical testing to support any of their claims.” Conversely, “the P320 has undergone the most rigorous testing and evaluation,” and the “plaintiffs’ so-called experts have conceded[ that] it is not possible for the P320 to discharge unless the trigger is fully actuated.” The Statement’s emphasis on facts, evidence, and testing suggests to a reasonable juror that the alleged opinion is one based in fact.
Finally, the underlying facts, i.e., whether the P320 can discharge without a trigger pull, can be objectively verified. Taking the Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, which the Court must do at this stage, it is possible for the P320 to discharge without a trigger pull. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 17 (“Many of these lawsuits … involved sworn testimony and expert reports contradicting Sig’s blanket ‘impossibility’ claim.”).
Because the Statement could reasonably be read to imply that it is based on an undisclosed defamatory fact, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the first disputed element: publication of a defamatory statement.
As to the second element, identification, the Plaintiff must “satisfy the ‘of and concerning’ element … to prevail[] on a common-law defamation claim.” The Statement need not specifically name the Plaintiff. Instead, “[a] plaintiff must ‘reasonably’ understand under all the circumstances that an allegedly defamatory statement was intended to refer to him.” …
Here, the Statement refers to “anti-gun groups, members of the mainstream media, trial attorneys, and other uniformed and agenda-driven parties.” It goes on to state that “[i]n all cases, these individuals have an ulterior motive behind their baseless allegations ….” The Plaintiffs’ allegations that a “very small group of trial attorneys … has tried … jury trials against Sig [Sauer],” and that Mr. Bagnell is “a trial attorney who … has represented … clients in active litigation against Sig [Sauer]” is sufficient to satisfy the identification element at the pleading stage.
The Statement’s reference to other groups does not negate the plausible identification of Mr. Bagnell as part of the Statement’s “trial attorneys.” The Statement also specifically mentions these lawsuits and how the claims have been dismissed, suggesting that the claims are brought for ulterior motives. Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (“Claims that unintended discharges are anything more than negligent handling and/or manufactured lies to support an anti-gun, anti-SIG agenda are false. Furthermore, lawsuits claiming that the P320 is capable of firing without the trigger being pulled have been dismissed in courtrooms around the country. In addition, multiple plaintiffs’ so-called experts have conceded, it is not possible for the P320 to discharge unless the trigger is fully actuated.”). Thus, the Plaintiffs have stated a viable defamation claim….
Ten days ago, I wrote about a related decision by the same judge, in a false advertising case filed by Sig Sauer against Bagnell, see Judge Blocks Lawyer’s Distribution of Animation That Allegedly Shows “Uncommanded Discharge” of Sig Sauer Pistol. But while Sig Sauer prevailed in that decision but not this one, the two are consistent: That decision held that a particular purported depiction of a Sig Sauer unintended discharge was “literally false as a factual matter,” but this decision holds that Bagnell plausibly alleged (among other things) that some uncommanded discharges are possible.
Read the full article here
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.