U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a preliminary injunction blocking Connecticut from enforcing its new “convertible pistol” ban the day before the law was set to take effect.
The court considered two cases: Glock, Inc. v. Griffin and National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin. Both cases challenged House Bill 5043 (Public Act 26-41), signed May 26, 2026, which expanded Connecticut’s machine-gun definition to include a “convertible pistol” fitted with a “pistol converter.” A convertible pistol is a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted by hand or with a common household tool. Hammer-fired pistols and pistols with a molded shield over the trigger bar are excluded. Selling, distributing, transporting, importing, or offering such a pistol in Connecticut would have been a Class D felony.
In the first case, Glock sued the Chief State’s Attorney, the state’s attorneys for each judicial district, and DESPP Commissioner Ronnell A. Higgins. In the second case, NSSF, Shadow Systems, and Blue Trail Range sued the same defendants except Higgins.
Both cases claim that the new law violates the Second Amendment under Bruen and Heller. Heller said firearms in common use cannot be banned. Glocks are the most common style of handgun in the country. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates Supreme Court precedent.
They also claimed that the law could not survive a Bruen analysis. The first step of a Bruen analysis is whether the conduct is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court said the only two questions at this step are whether the plaintiffs are members of “the people” and whether the arm is bearable. Both are clearly true, so the state conceded on these points. Because of this reasoning, the conduct is presumptively protected, and the burden shifts to the state to prove, using historical analogues, that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In this step, the “how and why” matter. The historical law’s goal must be similar. This is why courts usually reject Founding-era gunpowder laws.
The state offered two historical analogues: Founding-era “proving” and inspection laws (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) and the tradition of restricting machine guns. Dooley rejected that combination on this record. Proving laws were meant to ensure a gun was safe before sale, not to block later criminal conversion. Unconverted cruciform-trigger handguns are popular self-defense arms. Machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) and already-converted guns are already illegal. The court also noted the state’s inability to explain why a gun made September 30 needs no extra regulation, but the same gun made October 1 is too dangerous to sell.
Judge Dooley also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is damage that cannot be remedied by monetary means. Pre-October 1 inventory can still be sold, but that does not fix lost law-enforcement customers (who are not exempted), lost goodwill, broken contracts, advertising restrictions, and the Second Amendment injury to Connecticut residents. Blue Trail Range said it had about $25,000 of affected pistols, expected to sell through them by the end of October, and had already stopped ordering more.
The plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the Second Amendment claim, irreparable harm, and that the remaining Winter factors favor an injunction. The motions are granted. A separate implementing order will follow.
Dooley emphasized that this is on a compressed record and could change after fuller development. She did not decide whether Glock Slimline or Series VI models fall outside the statute; defense counsel said that review was underway.
The court addressed only the Second Amendment claim, not the plaintiffs’ other constitutional theories. Those other theories will be addressed during the merits arguments, because the plaintiffs needed to succeed on only one theory for the preliminary injunction to issue. The state is expected to appeal and seek a stay.
Senators Demand DOJ Probe and Destruction of ATF’s 1.4 Billion Out-of-Business Records
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
