Maryland’s newly signed ban on Glock-style pistols triggered an immediate legal challenge from major gun-rights groups, who argue the law will criminalize ordinary owners, trample the Second Amendment, and do little to stop violent criminals.
The Second Amendment Foundation, together with allied organizations, filed a lawsuit today in direct response to Gov. Wes Moore signing the measure into law. The challenge moves fast, aiming to block enforcement before the ban can upend gun ownership across the state. Plaintiffs say the law is written so broadly it will sweep in responsible citizens who never intended to break the law.
The lawsuit names Gov. Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Acting Superintendent of the Maryland State Police Michael Jackson as defendants. The National Rifle Association of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition joined the Second Amendment Foundation in the case to push back on the new restrictions.
The legal filing is titled 2026 Nra Fpc 2af v Moore Complaint by scott.mcclallen and sets out the constitutional arguments the groups will press in court. The complaint focuses on how the statute defines common pistols and the consequences for owners who lawfully purchased their firearms. Court filings are already circulating among legal observers who expect a fast-moving preliminary injunction fight.
Gov. Moore signed Senate Bill 334 into law, which states “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine-gun convertible pistol.” The statute adds that a “machine gun convertible pistol” is identified by a cruciform trigger bar.
The ban does not take effect immediately, but it activates on Jan. 1, 2027, creating a looming deadline for owners across Maryland. Supporters in the legislature argue the move will protect residents from criminals, while opponents say it will simply transform law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight. The dispute sets up a clash over policy, enforcement, and constitutional limits.
The legal teams are grounding their case in the text and history of the Constitution, pointing to the familiar wording that protects an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense, which “shall not be infringed.” That phrase has become a central reference point in modern Second Amendment litigation and will be front and center here. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue the law crosses the line into an outright ban on commonly owned pistols.
“This Maryland law bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market today,” said SAF Executive Adam Kraut.
https://x.com/gunrights/status/2059361246634213386
“These pistols are among the most popular on the market, chosen in overwhelming numbers by peaceable citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. Maryland has now attempted to ban these firearms because a subset of criminals illegally modifies them, using conversion parts that are themselves illegal to possess, and then commit crimes with the modified handguns. Not only is this law as foolish as banning hops and barley to prevent drunk driving, but these commonly owned arms are clearly protected by the Second Amendment, the ratification of which takes certain policy choices – including this one – off the table.”
The lawsuit will proceed as National Rifle Association v. Moore, with the NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition listed alongside SAF. Those groups bring litigation experience and resources that signal the case could travel to higher courts if necessary. Expect aggressive briefing and a push for quick judicial rulings given the January 2027 enforcement date.
“Bans like the one just signed in Maryland are the antithesis of good policy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
“This unconstitutional law does nothing more than punish peaceable gun owners in the state, and it cannot be allowed to stand. You can’t stop criminal violence by broadening the law just to make everyone a criminal. That strategy never works.”
