Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut's Glock Ban With Preliminary Injunction

Connecticut's Public Act 26-41 was set to make selling a Glock a felony starting October 1, 2026. It didn't happen. A federal judge blocked it the day before — and granted a preliminary injunction, not a temporary stopgap. Here's the law, the ruling, and what comes next.

Gun Talk Media Staff — October 1, 2026

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed House Bill 5043 on May 26, 2026, making Connecticut the second state after Maryland to ban so-called “convertible pistols” — a statutory category defined broadly enough to cover every standard Glock pistol ever manufactured. The law, designated Public Act 26-41, was scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026. Selling a covered pistol manufactured after that date was to become a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

It didn't get that far. On September 30, 2026 — one day before the clock turned — U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of HB5043, finding that the plaintiffs — Glock Inc., the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems, and Blue Trail Range — have demonstrated that the Second Amendment's text is implicated by the ban, which shifts the burden to Connecticut to justify the law under the Bruen text-and-history framework. Connecticut has not yet done that to the court's satisfaction.

This is the important distinction to understand: a preliminary injunction is not a temporary pause awaiting a later hearing. It's the ruling that follows that hearing. The plaintiffs already cleared the bar — likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest — and the injunction stays in place for as long as the underlying case is litigated, unless a higher court steps in. Connecticut is expected to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and could seek a stay pending that appeal. Barring that, the ban stays blocked. Here is the full context.

“Connecticut conceded this law implicates the text of the Second Amendment and it is therefore presumptively unconstitutional. This is the correct decision to put a hold on this law while the Court can hear arguments exposing the constitutional flaws that grossly trample on the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens.” — Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior VP & General Counsel, October 1, 2026

The Law: What Connecticut's HB5043 Actually Does

The ‘Convertible Pistol’ Definition

Connecticut's Public Act 26-41 creates a new statutory category: the ‘convertible pistol.’ The law defines a convertible pistol as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter — i.e., an illegal Glock switch device — whether or not there is a notch at the rear of the pistol frame.

The cruciform trigger bar is the hallmark of Glock's design and is used by most major striker-fired handgun manufacturers. The statute's definition covers every standard Glock model — from the G43X subcompact to the G17 full-size. It also covers competing striker-fired designs from Shadow Systems, and potentially other manufacturers whose designs share the cruciform trigger bar geometry. Hammer-fired pistols and striker-fired pistols with a shielded trigger bar are specifically exempted from the definition.

The law makes it a Class D felony — up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine — to sell, import, distribute, or advertise a convertible pistol manufactured after October 1, 2026, in Connecticut. Notably, the law provides no exemption for sales to law enforcement officers or agencies. If the law had taken effect as written, Connecticut police departments could not purchase new Glock pistols manufactured after today — a point the plaintiffs specifically raised in arguing for an injunction.

The Legislative History

HB5043 was introduced as a Governor's Bill by the Lamont administration in February 2026. The NRA-ILA immediately characterized it as ‘on shaky constitutional footing’ and noted that it would make possession of ‘an entire class of commonly-owned firearms’ a felony. The House passed the bill 86-64 on April 22, 2026. The Senate passed it in an overnight vote shortly after. Governor Lamont signed it May 26, 2026.

The law targets the phenomenon of ‘Glock switches’ — illegal machine gun conversion devices that have been recovered by law enforcement from crime scenes in Connecticut and across the country. The legislative argument is that because a Glock can be illegally converted by a criminal using one of these devices, the sale of the pistol itself should be regulated as a ‘convertible pistol.’ The constitutional argument against that logic is that the same reasoning could justify banning any firearm that can be illegally modified — which is virtually all of them — and that penalizing the law-abiding buyer for the criminal's illegal modification has no historical analog in the Founding era. That argument is exactly what persuaded Judge Dooley.

The Plaintiffs and Their Arguments

Glock Inc.

Glock filed its own complaint — Glock, Inc. v. Griffin, case 3:26-cv-01525 — on September 21, 2026, after the company sought written guidance from Connecticut officials on whether its Slimline, V Series, and Gen 6 pistols fall within the convertible pistol definition, and state officials refused to provide that guidance. Without clarity on whether its own products are legal to sell in Connecticut, Glock faced an impossible choice: halt all sales and risk losing its Connecticut market, or continue sales and risk its dealers facing felony prosecution. The complaint argues the law is void for vagueness — a separate constitutional ground from the Second Amendment challenge — because neither Glock nor its dealers can determine from the statute's text whether their products are covered.

The Glock complaint also notes a remarkable feature of the law: it would reach even law enforcement. Connecticut's statutory definition contains no law enforcement exemption. A Connecticut police department that orders new Glocks manufactured after October 1 would be receiving ‘convertible pistols’ under the statute. That anomaly strengthened the injunction argument that the law as written is constitutionally indefensible.

NSSF, Shadow Systems, and Blue Trail Range

NSSF — headquartered in Newtown, Connecticut, making this a particularly direct fight for the organization — filed its own suit, NSSF, Inc. v. Griffin, case 3:26-cv-01528, naming Chief State's Attorney Patrick Griffin as defendant in both cases. Shadow Systems, a Texas-based manufacturer of Glock-compatible pistols whose designs also use cruciform trigger bars, faces the same sales ban as Glock and joined the litigation. Blue Trail Range, a Connecticut firearms retailer, faces direct felony exposure under the law for any sales it would have made of covered pistols after today.

NSSF's statement after the injunction was granted cited the Bruen framework directly: Connecticut conceded in court that the law implicates the Second Amendment's text, which under Bruen means the law is presumptively unconstitutional. The burden has shifted to Connecticut to produce a historical tradition of analogous regulation. NSSF's position is that no such tradition exists because no historical regulation banned an entire class of commonly owned defensive firearms on the theory that criminals might illegally modify them.

The Judge's Reasoning: Why the Injunction Was Granted

Judge Dooley's preliminary injunction rests on the standard four-factor test: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest. The Second Amendment finding is the most legally significant:

• Likelihood of success: The court found the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. The specific basis is Bruen — Connecticut itself conceded the law implicates the Second Amendment's text, which means the law is presumptively unconstitutional under Bruen unless the state can produce a historical tradition of analogous regulation.
• Connecticut's historical arguments: The state offered two categories of historical regulation in its defense. First, so-called ‘proving laws’ — historical requirements that firearms be inspected for safety before entering commerce. Judge Dooley found these laws were designed to ensure firearms were safe at the point of sale, not to prohibit entire categories of commonly owned arms. Second, the historical tradition of restricting fully automatic weapons. Judge Dooley found the analogy insufficient: a law that bans a pistol because it can be illegally converted into a machine gun is not analogous to a law that bans actual machine guns.
• Irreparable harm: If the ban had taken effect without an injunction, every Connecticut FFL selling covered pistols would have faced immediate felony exposure. That threat is the definition of irreparable harm that cannot be remedied after the fact.
• Balance of hardships and public interest: Blocking enforcement while the constitutional questions are litigated does not harm Connecticut; it delays the state's ability to enforce a law a federal court has serious doubts about. The public interest in constitutional gun rights outweighed the state's interest in immediate enforcement of a presumptively unconstitutional law.

What This Means for Connecticut Gun Owners — Right Now

The preliminary injunction means Connecticut gun dealers can continue selling Glock pistols and other covered striker-fired handguns while it remains in effect. Because this is a preliminary injunction rather than a TRO, it isn't waiting on a future hearing to be reconsidered — the next move belongs to Connecticut on appeal, not to a hearing already won by the plaintiffs.

• Guns lawfully owned before October 1, 2026: Protected. The law's prohibition applies only to sales and importation of covered pistols manufactured after October 1. If you owned a Glock before today, you keep it. This is unchanged by the injunction.
• New purchases in Connecticut: The injunction allows dealers to sell covered pistols that would otherwise be banned, and it stays in force for the duration of the case. The risk isn't a denied motion — that already went the plaintiffs' way — it's a successful Connecticut appeal to the Second Circuit or a stay granted pending that appeal. If you want a Glock in Connecticut, the window is open now; don't assume it's permanent.
• For Connecticut FFLs: The injunction protects you from prosecution while it's in effect. Watch the docket for Connecticut's expected notice of appeal and any stay request to the Second Circuit — not a ‘preliminary injunction hearing,’ which has already happened and already went in the plaintiffs' favor.
• For out-of-state buyers: Connecticut's law does not affect purchases made outside Connecticut. If you live outside Connecticut, nothing changes.

The Broader Context: Connecticut, Maryland, and Viramontes

Connecticut's HB5043 is not the only state-level Glock ban in active litigation — and the other one just went the opposite way. Maryland's SB 334, the Bathras v. Moore case Gun Talk Media covered in August, similarly targets pistols with cruciform trigger bars and carries a January 1, 2027 enforcement date. On September 25, 2026 — five days before Judge Dooley's ruling in Connecticut — U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the Maryland case, keeping SB 334 on track to take effect as scheduled. Maryland's Attorney General Anthony Brown praised the ruling; Connecticut's injunction five days later cut the opposite direction on nearly identical facts.

Both cases will be influenced by Viramontes v. Cook County, the consolidated SCOTUS case on AR-15 platform rifles scheduled for oral argument December 2, 2026. The central question in Viramontes is whether the government can ban an entire class of commonly owned firearms under the Second Amendment. The answer the Court gives will directly affect how lower courts evaluate Connecticut's ‘convertible pistol’ theory and Maryland's similar ban — including whichever of the two rulings above gets appealed first. If SCOTUS holds that commonly owned firearms are constitutionally protected, both the Connecticut and Maryland Glock bans become extraordinarily difficult to defend under Bruen. If SCOTUS narrows that holding or creates exceptions, the state-level Glock bans may find more room to survive.

The English survey data Gun Talk Media covered September 11 — which found 88 million American gun owners, 461 million total firearms, and approximately 40 million AR-15 type rifles in private hands — provides the evidentiary foundation for the ‘commonly owned’ argument across all these cases. Glock pistols are the most popular handgun in the United States. A ban on Glock sales is a ban on the most commonly owned defensive handgun in the country. That is the constitutional argument in one sentence.

Full Case Reference

Bottom Line: The Glock Ban Is Blocked — And It's Not a Close Call Legally, For Now

Connecticut's attempt to make selling a Glock a felony was stopped by a federal judge the day before enforcement was set to begin — and stopped with a preliminary injunction, not a placeholder. Judge Dooley found that Connecticut has no historical tradition of banning commonly owned firearms on the theory that criminals might illegally modify them, and that finding now governs the case unless a higher court disturbs it. The ban stays blocked through the full litigation on the merits unless Connecticut succeeds in getting the injunction stayed or reversed on appeal.

The legal theory at stake is the same one that will be argued before SCOTUS on December 2 in Viramontes — and the same one that just lost in Maryland five days before it won in Connecticut. If the Supreme Court holds that commonly owned firearms cannot be categorically banned under the Second Amendment, Connecticut's ‘convertible pistol’ law stays blocked and Maryland's SB 334 becomes very hard to defend. If SCOTUS narrows that holding or creates exceptions, both state bans may find more room to survive, and Connecticut's path through the Second Circuit becomes the one to watch.

Gun Talk Media will cover Connecticut's appeal and every subsequent development in this case as it moves through the courts. NSSF, Glock, SAF, FPC, and NRA-ILA are all tracking this litigation closely. This is a story that will run through the December 2 Viramontes argument and into 2027.

Sources & Further Reading

• The signed court order — Glock, Inc. v. Griffin & NSSF, Inc. v. Griffin, U.S. District Court, D. Conn., September 30, 2026
• NSSF: NSSF Welcomes Federal Court Decision Blocking Connecticut's Unconstitutional Gun Ban
• The Reload: Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut Glock Ban
• AmmoLand: Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut's Glock Ban Before It Takes Effect
• Bearing Arms: Federal Judge Halts State's Ban on Glock Sales Hours Before It Takes Effect
• WFSB: Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut Ban on Convertible Glock-Style Pistols
• Fox Baltimore: AG Brown on Ruling Keeping Maryland's Glock Ban in Place — the Maryland contrast
• GunStuff TV: Judge Denies Injunction, Maryland's Glock-Style Pistol Ban Stands
• SCOTUSblog: Viramontes v. Cook County — case page, December 2 oral argument