Connecticut cannot tell gun dealers whether GLOCK pistols specifically redesigned to resist illegal machinegun conversion devices will become illegal to sell on October 1. Now GLOCK is asking a federal court to answer the question before dealers risk felony prosecution.
GLOCK filed its 31-page complaint Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Glock, Inc. v. Griffin challenges House Bill 5043, enacted as Public Act 26-41, and names the officials responsible for enforcing it.
The company also filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the law takes effect.
GLOCK Says Its Current Pistols Are Not Covered
GLOCK first asks the court to declare that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen 6 pistols do not fall within the statutory definition and may continue to be imported, advertised, and sold.
Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily altered” and “readily converted” into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law does not define “readily altered,” “readily converted,” or “readily removed.”
According to the complaint, GLOCK’s Models 42, 43, 43X, and 48 are too narrow to accept known machinegun conversion devices. Its V Series and Gen6 pistols use a “triple block” consisting of reinforced rear frame rails, steel domes in the slide, and a modified slide-cover plate.
GLOCK says a July 8, 2025, ATF report found that the system prevented the installation and operation of every conversion device tested on a Gen6 G19. ATF reportedly determined that the hardened steel bracket molded into the frame was not easily altered.
Since December 1, 2025, GLOCK says it has stopped manufacturing, importing, and selling new Gen5 and earlier standard-width pistols for the American civilian market, replacing them with V Series and Gen6 models. Slimline pistols remain in production.
In other words, Connecticut’s law may block the sale of pistols already redesigned to defeat the devices lawmakers claimed to be targeting.
State Police Allegedly Admitted They Did Not Know
GLOCK says company representatives met with seven members of the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and two State Police firearms-unit representatives on August 27. Using sample pistols, GLOCK explained why its current commercial models should fall outside the ban.
During that meeting, the State Police representatives allegedly acknowledged that dealers were asking whether new GLOCK pistols would be banned—and that the unit did not know the answer.
GLOCK then asked the chief state’s attorney and the other enforcement officials for a position. None provided one before the lawsuit was filed.
That uncertainty leaves Connecticut’s 659 FFLs, including 35 GLOCK Stocking Dealers, facing a Class D felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The complaint also notes that approximately 85 percent of Connecticut law-enforcement agencies issue GLOCK pistols. Public Act 26-41 contains no exception allowing covered pistols manufactured after October 1 to be imported or sold to police agencies, potentially interfering with approved-model purchases and warranty replacements.
GLOCK Raises Second and First Amendment Claims
If the court will not declare the current models outside the law, GLOCK asks it to strike down the ban as unconstitutionally vague and contrary to the Second Amendment. The company argues there is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned semiautomatic handguns because criminals can illegally modify them using devices already prohibited under state and federal law.
GLOCK also raises a First Amendment claim because the statute criminalizes “advertising” without defining the term. Truthful website listings, manuals, buyer’s guides, or dealer-counter materials could therefore be swept into a felony prohibition.
Connecticut wrote a criminal law broad enough that even the police unit overseeing firearm dealers allegedly cannot explain what it bans. The Constitution does not permit the state to leave citizens and businesses guessing where lawful commerce ends and a felony begins.
Clarence Thomas: The Second Amendment Assumes a Right—It Does Not Grant One
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
