Connecticut is now facing a second federal challenge to its new “convertible pistol” ban—and this lawsuit goes directly after the premise that the state may prohibit common handguns because criminals can illegally modify them.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems, and Connecticut retailer Blue Trail Range filed National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the challenged portions of House Bill 5043 before they take effect October 1.
The case follows GLOCK’s lawsuit challenging the same Connecticut law, but the two cases approach the ban from different directions. GLOCK argues first that its redesigned Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols do not fall within Connecticut’s definition. NSSF and Shadow Systems make the more fundamental argument: Connecticut cannot ban the future sale of common, unmodified handguns merely because a criminal could attach an already-illegal machinegun conversion device.
Connecticut is punishing the handgun and the law-abiding gun owner instead of the criminal who illegally converts it.
Connecticut Targets the Gun, Not the Illegal Switch
Gov. Ned Lamont signed HB 5043, now Public Act 26-41, in May after it cleared the legislature. AmmoLand warned while the bill was moving through Hartford that its so-called “convertible pistol” language was aimed at GLOCK-pattern handguns and other pistols using a cruciform trigger bar.
Effective October 1, the law makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale a covered “convertible pistol” manufactured on or after that date. A conviction can carry up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered by hand or with a common household tool so it can be converted into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law provides an escape clause for a pistol with a non-removable piece molded into the frame that shields the trigger bar.
This is not a general possession ban, and the lawsuit does not challenge Connecticut’s authority to prohibit an illegally converted pistol. It challenges the state’s attempt to close the lawful market to unmodified semiautomatic handguns.
Machinegun conversion devices, often called switches, are already illegal under federal and Connecticut law. Federal law treats the device itself as a machine gun even when it is not installed. Connecticut can prosecute those who possess or install them. It cannot use those crimes as an excuse to deny peaceable citizens access to common defensive arms.
Shadow Systems Gives the Challenge Real-World Stakes
Shadow Systems manufactures American-made GLOCK-pattern pistols built around the cruciform-trigger design. According to the verified complaint, the company shipped more than $204 million in products to retailers nationwide from 2021 through August 2026, overwhelmingly cruciform-trigger handguns. During the same period, it sold more than $530,000 in those handguns into Connecticut.
The company says none of its current popular cruciform-trigger models contains the molded shielding feature Connecticut demands. Complying would require substantial time and money to redesign pistols lawful buyers already choose for their safety, reliability, and familiarity, with no guarantee that Connecticut would not move the goalposts again.
Shadow Systems has already seen what a state-level ban can do. The complaint alleges that California’s similar law forced the company out of that market, costing it nearly $3.8 million in annual revenue, or approximately 11 percent of its business.
Blue Trail Range supplies the retailer side of the case. The Wallingford range and gun store says cruciform-trigger handguns and accessories represent a substantial part of its business. When the pistol a customer trusts disappears from the shelf, some buyers simply walk away.
Those injuries are not theoretical. Unless the court intervenes, Connecticut dealers must begin navigating felony exposure on October 1.
Connecticut’s Ban Has No Limiting Principle
The complaint alleges that more than 500,000 cruciform-trigger handguns are manufactured for the American market annually. NSSF members producing these pistols include GLOCK, Shadow Systems, Ruger, Palmetto State Armory, Derya, and Beretta through Stoeger.
These are ordinary semiautomatic handguns used for self-defense, training, competition, and recreation. Exactly the class of arms the Supreme Court described in District of Columbia v. Heller as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”
NSSF’s historical argument is straightforward. Americans have long prohibited dangerous modifications without banning the underlying firearm. A criminal can use a hacksaw to create an illegal short-barreled shotgun, but that does not give government authority to ban ordinary shotguns. The historical response to trap guns was likewise to punish the unlawful act, not outlaw the firearm.
The same principle applies here. The existence of an illegal aftermarket switch does not transform an unmodified semiautomatic pistol into a machine gun.
If Connecticut may ban a common handgun because someone can illegally convert it, there is no meaningful limit. As the Supreme Court recognized in Staples v. United States, virtually any semiautomatic firearm can be converted through internal modification. Connecticut’s logic could become the excuse for banning virtually every semiautomatic firearm in America.
Even the Second Circuit Used the GLOCK 17 as the Counterexample
The lawsuit also turns Connecticut’s own appellate precedent against the state.
In National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, the Second Circuit upheld Connecticut’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. But it contrasted those firearms with popular semiautomatic handguns “like the Glock 17,” emphasizing that Connecticut residents could still possess them.
HB 5043 now attacks precisely the type of handgun the Second Circuit used as its example of an ordinary protected arm. The state cannot rely on the continued availability of GLOCK pistols to defend one gun ban and then turn around and prohibit future sales of those pistols under another.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction or, alternatively, a temporary restraining order. They want the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and stop Connecticut’s prosecutors from enforcing them while the case proceeds. NSSF announced the emergency challenge on September 21.
Connecticut already has the authority to prosecute illegal machinegun conversion. What the Second Amendment does not permit is collective punishment of every lawful manufacturer, dealer, and gun owner because criminals refuse to obey laws that were already on the books.
The switch is illegal. The criminal conversion is illegal. The common semiautomatic handgun is not, and Connecticut has no constitutional authority to pretend otherwise.
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.
from https://ift.tt/mBRSGaZ
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment