BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — After convening a hearing on September 29, a federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an order granting a preliminary injunction in two separate cases challenging the state’s imminent Glock pistol ban.
District Judge Kari A. Dooley issued the 12-page order on September 30, just one day before the effective date of the new ban, noting that the law is “presumptively unconstitutional.” The order stops the ban from going into effect, with the court observing “that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the likelihood that they will suffer irreparable harm if enforcement of the statute is not enjoined.”
On October 1, the Georgia-based firearms manufacturer issued a rare public statement in response to the court order, announcing in part that, “…Connecticut businesses may continue lawfully importing, advertising, offering, and selling GLOCK pistols, including those manufactured on or after October 1, 2026.” See their full statement here.
The Connecticut attorney general stated, “Connecticut does not agree with the Court and will continue to defend the law.”
As we previously reported, Glock filed an affirmative suit challenging the Connecticut ban on September 21, highlighting a frustrating situation where the state refused to give guidance about the legality of its various product lineups as they related to the details of the new law.
On the same date, another group of plaintiffs filed suit against Connecticut, challenging the same law. A gun rights group, joined by a manufacturer and a shooting range, filed National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin in the same district court, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The second lawsuit characterizes the Glock product lineup as “the quintessential handgun,” going on to espouse the features that make it a preferred firearm among many American citizens (and ironically enough, Connecticut’s law enforcement):
By integrating multiple firearm components into a single part, the cruciform-trigger design resulted in a handgun that is less expensive to produce, easier to maintain, less susceptible to component failure or debris infiltration, and – critically – less likely to accidentally discharge.
Judge Dooley’s ruling may reach beyond Connecticut. On September 30, a DOJ trial attorney with the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section briefed the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Judge Dooley’s “decision is relevant to the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff.”
The case in question is the DOJ’s July 1 suit against California over its handgun roster that limits California residents from buying many popular firearms, like some Glock models. The DOJ is essentially telling the California district court how a sister court arrived at its decision to issue a preliminary injunction, presumably with the hope that it does the same.
California, likely already aware of the Connecticut ruling, announced that it added the Glock 43X to the approved roster of firearms, in a September 30 Request for Judicial Notice, “In support of the Defendants’ opposition to the United States’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
The 43X CA is the first Glock California treats as not “machinegun-convertible,” so dealers can sell it new, while the older Gen 3 Glocks still listed on the roster generally cannot be sold by dealers under the AB 1127 ban.
For its part, California essentially said, “Please don’t grant the preliminary injunction because we are actively expanding the roster.”
We will continue to follow this story.
