Key Takeaways
- Maryland has banned popular handguns, including many Glock models, through Senate Bill 334, which takes effect on January 1, 2027.
- In response, major gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the ban, claiming it violates the Second Amendment.
- The law targets semiautomatic pistols labeled as ‘machine gun convertible,’ despite existing laws against illegal modifications like switches.
- Opponents argue that the ban unfairly punishes lawful gun owners instead of addressing criminal misuse of firearms.
- The case highlights important constitutional issues surrounding gun ownership and could set a significant precedent beyond Maryland.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
BALTIMORE, MD — Maryland just banned one of the most popular handguns in America, and gun rights groups sued before the ink was dry.
Gov. Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 334 into law on Tuesday. Within minutes, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit to stop it.
The law targets what it calls a “machine gun convertible pistol.” That label covers any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar. In plain terms, that sweeps in nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol sold today, along with popular models like the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, the Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems handguns.
Starting January 1, 2027, no one in Maryland will be able to manufacture, sell, buy, receive, or transfer those firearms. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Here is the part that should bother every law-abiding gun owner. The state did not ban these pistols because of anything the guns actually do. It banned them because a criminal can illegally attach an illegal device, a so-called switch, to turn one into a machine gun.
Those switches are already illegal. They are banned under federal law and under Maryland law, and the conversion is already a serious crime. Maryland’s answer was to go after the gun instead of the criminal.
More from USA Carry:
I keep coming back to the analogy SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut used. He called the law “as foolish as banning hops and barley to prevent drunk driving.” That lands because it is exactly right. You do not stop the misuse by punishing millions of peaceable people who never misuse anything.
The lawsuit, filed as National Rifle Association v. Moore in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, makes a straightforward constitutional argument. Handguns are in common use for lawful purposes. The Supreme Court said so in Heller, and it said so again in Bruen. Arms in common use cannot be banned, and Glock-pattern pistols are among the best-selling handguns in the country, so the math is not close.
NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford said Moore had “banned one of the most popular handguns in America” with a single signature. FPC President Brandon Combs was blunter, calling the ban “immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.”
The Second Amendment is not a policy suggestion. It is a fundamental civil right, and the right to keep an arm necessarily includes the right to acquire one. A ban on buying a constitutionally protected handgun is a ban on the handgun itself. Naming only one popular category does not save it.
The defendants are Gov. Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Maryland State Police Secretary Michael Jackson, who the Senate confirmed to lead the agency in February. The plaintiffs are represented by Nicole J. Moss and her colleagues at Cooper & Kirk, and they are asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and block enforcement.
SB 334 was sponsored by state Sen. Sara Love. It cleared the legislature this spring and takes formal effect October 1, 2026, with the sales and transfer ban kicking in on the first day of the new year.
Current owners are not required to surrender anything. But once the law is live, you cannot sell or transfer your pistol to anyone outside a narrow list of exceptions, which includes immediate family, inheritances, certain gunsmith repairs, and law enforcement.
I will be tracking this case closely as it moves through the District Court, including the state’s response and any push for a preliminary injunction. This one matters well beyond Maryland.
