A federal judge has granted an injunction that prevents Connecticut from enforcing its ban on Glock pistols as of Wednesday.
This action follows a lawsuit filed by Glock and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) against the state’s prohibition on their well-known pistols. The ban was signed into law by Democratic Governor Ned Lamont in May. U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley, appointed by Trump, indicated that the ban does not meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In her ruling, Dooley noted, “The Defendants offer no adequate explanation as to how the sale of a firearm manufactured on September 30, 2026 needs no safety regulation but the same firearm manufactured 24 hours later is sufficiently dangerous so as to be properly restricted and regulated by the state.” She added that the plaintiffs appeared likely to succeed in their case, stating that the statute is presumed unconstitutional, and the defendants failed to prove that it aligns with the historical context of firearms regulation in the nation.
Democrats in Connecticut, who advocated for the ban, expressed their disapproval of the ruling through various statements. Attorney General William Tong emphasized that the state would keep defending the law despite the court’s decision.
Democratic state Senators Martin Looney and Bob Duff criticized the ruling as well, arguing that a judge appointed by Trump has misinterpreted the Second Amendment but vowed to maintain their responsibility to protect citizens.
Supporters of the ban argued that devices called “Glock switches” were being misused to turn Glock pistols into machine guns, leading to the legislation referring to them as “machine gun convertible pistols.” According to existing federal law, it’s illegal to own or create a fully automatic firearm that isn’t properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) according to the National Firearms Act of 1934.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane stated, “Connecticut conceded this law implicates the text of the Second Amendment, and it is therefore presumptively unconstitutional.” He welcomed the decision to suspend the law while the court considers constitutional criticisms that may infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Keane further remarked that Connecticut lawmakers appear to disregard limitations on Second Amendment rights, insisting that they are not second-class rights.
