Glock, Inc. v Griffin (Connecticut Cruciform Trigger Bar Ban)

[mauserme]

Glock is challenging Connecticut's ban on "convertible pistols", calling the statute vague and ambiguous.

 

 

Quote

 

During the August 27, 2026 meeting, representatives from the Connecticut State Police SLFU advised that federally licensed firearms dealers in Connecticut have been calling to ask whether the importation and sale of new GLOCK pistols will be banned effective October 1, 2026, but that they do not know the answer.

...

Based on the vague and ambiguous definition of a “convertible pistol” in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202(a)(4), the Connecticut State Police SLFU’s inability to determine whether the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols are considered to be “convertible pistols” as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202(a)(4), and the lack of a response from the Office of the Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney, there is an actual, substantial, and concrete case and controversy regarding whether the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols are considered to be “convertible pistols” as defined by in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202(a)(4).

 

Glock, Inc. therefore seeks a declaratory judgment that the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols are not considered to be “convertible pistols” as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202(a)(4).

 

In the alternative, Glock, Inc. seeks a declaration that the “convertible pistol” ban is unconstitutional on the basis that it is void for vagueness in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, bans firearms in common use for lawful purposes without any historical support in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and infringes the right to free speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

...
 

 

 

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Glock-v-Griffin-complaint.pdf

 

 

Glock-v-Griffin-complaint.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2026 at 10:23 AM by mauserme
Edited Topic Title

[Euler]

The case is captioned Glock v Griffin. (docket)

On September 21, Glock filed its complaint, along with motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction with an expedited schedule. Between the clerk and the judge, the schedule (which will probably change, of course) is set as follows:

2026
09/24: service of copies of complaint and motions to defendants due
09/28: defendants' response to motion for preliminary injunction due
09/29: hearing for motions for TRO and preliminary injunction
10/12: defendants' response to complaint due
11/20: amended pleadings due

2027
03/23: discovery due
04/27: dispositive motions due

Edited September 22, 2026 at 03:01 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 22, the court consolidated the hearing for Glock v Griffin on September 29 with a preliminary injunction hearing for NSSF v Griffin in a similar complaint about the challenged statute.

Edited September 23, 2026 at 12:22 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 25, Griffin asked to extend the deadline to respond to the motions for TRO and preliminary injunction to October 19. Glock objected.

The law goes into effect October 1 without a TRO. Essentially CT is asking the court to let the law to go into effect and disregard the motion for TRO. The response is due Monday.

Edited September 26, 2026 at 05:55 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 28, the court held a status conference for the motions for a TRO and a preliminary injunction. The court then denied the motion to extend the deadline to respond to the motions. Griffin filed a response.

The hearing for the motions themselves is still scheduled for September 29.

[SiliconSorcerer]

Just what I saw, if this is noise please feel free to delete 

Yesterday (29th) 

“Glock, Inc. requested the State’s position regarding whether the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols are considered to be ‘convertible pistols,’” according to a court filing from the gun manufacturer. “The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General refused to respond.”

 

 

State leaders pushed back.

“Rather than provide a sample to the state for testing, Plaintiff ‘explained why’ its models ‘do not fall within the definition of a ‘convertible pistol,’” according to a response from the state attorney general.

 

Dooley raised concerns of her own. During oral arguments, she called the ban “messy” and suggested that “aspects of this law are virtually impossible to enforce, at least fairly.”

 

Dooley said she will issue a ruling by the “end of business” on Wednesday.

Dooley can do nothing and let this law take effect on Thursday, issue a temporary restraining order good for two weeks or issue a preliminary injunction, which lasts longer.

Last week, a federal judge upheld a similar law in Maryland. Glock is also challenging another ban in California.

 

[mauserme]

On 9/30/2026 at 8:49 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Just what I saw, if this is noise please feel free to delete 

Yesterday (29th) 

“Glock, Inc. requested the State’s position regarding whether the Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 GLOCK pistols are considered to be ‘convertible pistols,’” according to a court filing from the gun manufacturer. “The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General refused to respond.”

 

 

State leaders pushed back.

“Rather than provide a sample to the state for testing, Plaintiff ‘explained why’ its models ‘do not fall within the definition of a ‘convertible pistol,’” according to a response from the state attorney general.

 

Dooley raised concerns of her own. During oral arguments, she called the ban “messy” and suggested that “aspects of this law are virtually impossible to enforce, at least fairly.”

 

Dooley said she will issue a ruling by the “end of business” on Wednesday.

Dooley can do nothing and let this law take effect on Thursday, issue a temporary restraining order good for two weeks or issue a preliminary injunction, which lasts longer.

Last week, a federal judge upheld a similar law in Maryland. Glock is also challenging another ban in California.

 

 

Dooley being the judge the case was was assigned to.

 

 

[Euler]

On September 30, the judge issued a preliminary injunction.

Reminder: Preliminary injunctions last until the outcome of the trial. However, the other side can (and certainly will) appeal to the circuit court.