SAF, Partners File for Injunction Against Maryland’s Glock Ban

Maryland, like Connecticut, passed a ban on handguns such as Glock’s entire line. While most companies make other types of semi-automatic handguns, these bans basically kick Glock out of the state completely. And for what? We already know that so-called Glock switches aren’t exactly resulting in more deaths than if they didn’t exist.

Still, it’s a thing, and Maryland banned them.

It’s also a thing that it was challenged immediately. Now, the Second Amendment Foundation is asking for an injunction against the measure.

From a press release:

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction in Bathras v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to the Maryland Glock ban signed into law by Gov. Wes Moore earlier this year. 

SAF filed the lawsuit in May immediately after Gov. Moore signed Senate Bill 334 into law. The new law states that a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar. Unique to Glock and Glock-style handguns, a cruciform trigger bar is a pivotal component to the overall design of the handgun. SB 334 purports to ban these popular and completely legal handguns in an effort to prevent their already-illegal conversion into machineguns. The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027. 

“Handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, and Glock-style handguns are overwhelmingly popular for everyday civilians, police and military users.” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The contrived premise of this bill is that Glocks must be banned because criminals can alter them into machineguns. But that conversion is already illegal and so is the possession of the parts necessary to do it – upon threat of stiff federal incarceration. But Maryland lawmakers passed a bill, not aimed at the tiny fraction of Glock owners who illegally alter their firearms, but rather at everyone who would choose one of the most popular brands of handguns on the market with which to exercise their rights.” 

That’s a big thing in my mind, because we already know that states cannot ban guns “in common use,” and Glocks are very common for all of the groups Sack names. While I disagree with the “in common use” doctrine, the fact is that it’s a handy defense against crap like this.

Plus, again as Sack notes, the conversion is already illegal. They’re banning a gun that isn’t a machine gun because people do something illegal to it, and that makes it somehow justified to ban the gun, at least in their minds. The thing is, why didn’t they ban shotguns, then? The conversion of one of those to a short-barreled shotgun is simpler, using only a tool in a lot of American homes and in every American hardware store. 

Why didn’t they ban shotguns to deal with sawed-off versions?

Because the bad guys weren’t using them often enough? The truth is that the bad guys aren’t really using them that often as it is, so I find that argument specious.

As noted in the brief, “…the State’s argument is not that ‘machinegun convertible pistols’ are ‘excessively dangerous’ as sold. Rather, the State’s argument is that machinegun converted pistols are. But it has no support for the principle that an ordinary handgun, which the Supreme Court has already held is protected in Heller, can be considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ because it could be turned into a different kind of weapon by adding an illegal part or making other criminal alterations to the handgun.” SAF is joined in Bathras v. Moore by Atlantic Guns, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens. 

Which is kind of what I said above, but I have a word count to reach, people. Work with me.

Of course, they also didn’t mention shotguns here, so I guess I’m in the clear.

“Maryland is known as the Free State, yet Marylanders are being told that a major chunk of the commercially available handgun market is off limits for them,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If residents in Maryland were truly free, then this absurd law would never have made it past the inception stage. Instead, it’s taken the filing of a lawsuit to ensure the Second Amendment rights of those living in Maryland are defended from idealogue lawmakers who think they can decide which constitutional rights citizens in the state can freely exercise.”

Maryland can call itself whatever it wants, but only because “truth in labeling” laws don’t apply to states and their willful self-delusions; if they did, that’s yet another lawsuit the state should face.

The problem for Maryland and other anti-Glock states is that they’re not just violating the Constitution, but they’re targeting the wrong people. Glock isn’t making these switches. If anything, they’re a victim here, because their name is tarnished by the actions of criminal individuals violating state and federal law by even owning the devices, much less throwing them onto a firearm capable of taking them.

But what about the injunction itself?

To me, that seems obvious. There’s no reason to block the sale of Glocks, which a lot of people want for lawful purposes, when we all know this is going to be decided against Maryland and other states, ultimately.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.