HARTFORD, Conn. — Glock filed its first-ever challenge against a state attempting to ban its legal products in a September 21 complaint against Connecticut over its recently enacted “convertible pistol” ban.
Glock Inc. v. Griffin was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming the Chief State’s Attorney along with State’s Attorneys in each judicial district and the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
The 31-page complaint argues the ban violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, including being void for vagueness.
This is the first complaint that Glock has filed in response to increasing legal pressure from blue states, and it didn’t do so without first attempting to work with the state.
The company’s counsel wrote the Connecticut attorney general in July seeking guidance. Then in August, Glock representatives met with the AG’s office along with representatives from the State Police Special Licensing and Firearms Unit attempting to persuade the officials that “the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols do not fall within the definition of a ‘convertible pistol.'”
The state’s overall response to Glock’s attempt to seek clarification has been a game of legal hot potato, including the state writing that criminal enforcement is not a duty of the AG’s office, and that it “cannot answer legal questions from private parties pursuant to our legal authority.” A separate letter to the Chief State’s Attorney on September 8 also went unanswered.
With the newly enacted ban’s effective date of October 1 looming, and the state seemingly having no desire to provide clarification, Glock filed suit. It noted that without written guidance, dealers will not risk buying or selling the newly manufactured models, and Glock itself would lose revenue from the ban on sales.
Connecticut’s ban (HB 5043) enacted in May, created a newly defined class of firearms it called “convertible pistols,” specifically targeting most semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that could be “readily altered” or “readily converted” (terms not defined by the statute) by installing “machinegun conversion devices” (MCDs) to operate in a fully automatic mode (already a criminal act).
In 2022, Glock had already begun looking at changes to its lineup over the “increasing popularity of MCDs.” In 2025, the company discontinued Gen 5 and earlier models for civilian sales (except the Slimline series) and replaced them with a redesigned V Series and Gen 6 series, which it asserted are “not readily susceptible” to installation of MCDs.
In a rarity, the Connecticut pistol ban provides no exemptions for law enforcement, a significant point that the complaint brings forth:
There are no exceptions to the ban on the importation and sale of “convertible pistols” manufactured on or after October 1, 2026 for sale to law enforcement officers, or even to law enforcement agencies.
In addition to the Second Amendment violation of making it illegal to import, advertise, and sell previously legal firearms around arbitrary dates, Glock also argues that the challenged statute violates the First Amendment:
HB 5043 authorizes the imposition of criminal liability for speech about legal products – products expressly protected by the Constitution, no less – even when that speech is truthful and not misleading. Indeed, the words “false,” “misleading,” and “deceptive” appear nowhere in the statute. Glock, Inc.’s publication of advertisements containing entirely accurate specifications of its legal products – caliber, magazine capacity, weight, retail price, etc. – could constitute a felony criminal offense under HB 5043 if they are visible to persons in Connecticut.
The complaint goes on to illustrate, “That a product being marketed is dangerous does not render speech promoting it entitled to any less constitutional protection either. Truthful speech promoting a legal product is protected by the First Amendment even if the product is known to have deleterious health effects.”
With regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, the complaint states, “Pursuant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a statute is void for vagueness if what it prohibits or requires is not clearly explained in the statute itself in a manner in which an ordinary citizen can understand.”
The statute provides no definition for the terms “readily altered” and “readily converted,” nor is there a definition for “readily removed” or “advertises.”
The complaint notes the irony of not being able to advertise products it may still sell to law enforcement outside of the state:
This provision could also be very broadly interpreted to apply to Glock, Inc.’s website referring to the features of the Gen3, Gen4, and Gen5 pistols in general, which it still must manufacture, import and otherwise have available for sale to law enforcement and other government agencies that use such pistol models.
While state after state has banned Glock or Glock-style products (so far, California, Connecticut, New York, and Maryland), and other states have sued Glock under “nuisance” complaints (New Jersey, Minnesota, and Maryland), the company has been largely silent, which led us to characterize it as the “whipping boy” of the industry. In fact, some questioned whether the company’s actions could have been seen as an act of betrayal to gun owners. Glock is finally responding in defense of itself and potential customers, and hopefully not a moment too late.
