By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-10-02 01:21:44 | Updated at 2026-10-02 03:32:45
2 hours ago
A U.S. District Court judge in Connecticut has issued an injunction against the state’s ban on pistols that can be easily converted from semiautomatic to fully automatic machine guns using illegal devices.
On Oct. 1, the same day Connecticut’s ban—commonly known as a “Glock ban”—was set to become effective, District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley blocked enforcement of the ban, ruling that it did not meet the legal standard set in the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In that decision, the high court found that if a law concerned conduct covered by the plain language of the Second Amendment, it was considered unconstitutional unless it had a historical analogue from the time of the amendment’s ratification.
HB 5043 bans the importation, sale, and manufacturing of “easily convertible” pistols, especially those with a cruciform trigger bar, after Oct. 1, 2026. At the time of the bill’s passage, that included almost the entire line of pistols made by Glock Inc. Glock is an Austria-based company with headquarters in the United States.
Glock sued, arguing that the law violates the “due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, violates the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, violates the right to freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
At around the same time, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) sued the state of Connecticut on similar grounds. In its filing, the NSSF stated there was no historical analogue for banning a firearm because it could be altered. The firearms trade organization noted that when officials decided sawed-off shotguns were especially dangerous, they banned the alteration, not all shotguns.
Dooley’s decision addresses both legal actions as they are similar. She agreed with the plaintiffs that the law would likely fail any legal challenges, infringes on the Second Amendment, and has no historical analogue.
The Connecticut state Capitol in Hartford on May 4, 2020. John Moore/Getty Images
“Having concluded that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to HB 5043; that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the likelihood that they will suffer irreparable harm if enforcement of the statute is not enjoined; and that the other factors to be weighed when considering the issuance of injunctive relief favor such relief, Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief are granted,” Dooley’s decision reads.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
Chris Stone, director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, called the law “reckless and unconstitutional” in an email to The Epoch Times. He hailed the decision as “a major victory for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners.”
“Connecticut’s ban on popular, commonly owned handguns has no grounding in our nation’s history and violates the right to keep and bear arms,” Stone stated in his email.
The law is meant to address the proliferation of so-called “Glock switches,” which can be easily installed on pistols with cruciform trigger bars converting them into machine guns. The switches have become a favorite accessory for gang members and other criminals, according to law enforcement.
Glock Inc.’s website discourages their use and advises that anyone who knows where any are to call the police since the devices are illegal.
“Glock does not manufacture, license, sell, or otherwise approve of illegal [machine gun conversion devices] or fully automatic conversion of any Glock pistols,” the website states.
Other states, including California, Maryland, and New York, have similar bans. Shortly after California announced its ban, Glock redesigned its pistols, including the triggers.
