SAF FILES MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN MARYLAND GLOCK BAN CASE

July 21, 2026
12:00 pm

▶

Listen to Article

The Second Amendment Foundation’s motion for a preliminary injunction in Bathras v. Moore is more than procedural housekeeping; it is a calculated strike at the heart of Maryland’s newest attempt to criminalize the most popular handgun platform in America. By asking the court to halt enforcement of Senate Bill 334 before it can take effect, SAF is forcing judges to confront the post-Bruen reality that states can no longer hide behind “sensitive places” rhetoric or invented “traditions” when they simply dislike a firearm’s ergonomics or magazine capacity. The motion’s timing—filed the same month the law was signed—signals that the plaintiffs intend to keep the Glock ban from ever becoming normal, denying Maryland the chance to create facts on the ground that later courts might be reluctant to unwind. What makes this case especially combustible is its collision with the Supreme Court’s instruction that modern analogues, not policy preferences, must justify restrictions on arms in common use. Glocks have been the dominant duty and defensive pistol for more than three decades; banning them is the functional equivalent of banning the AR-15 platform under a different name. If the district court grants the injunction, it will reinforce that “assault weapon” and “ghost gun” euphemisms cannot be stretched to cover the single most ubiquitous handgun in lawful commerce. A denial, conversely, would tee up an expedited appeal that could reach the Fourth Circuit while Bruen is still fresh precedent, giving gun owners across the mid-Atlantic a clearer map of which restrictions survive constitutional scrutiny. For the broader 2A community the stakes are immediate and practical. Every day the ban remains on the books chills training, competition, and lawful carry by Maryland residents who already navigate some of the nation’s most restrictive permitting regimes. A swift injunction would not only protect current owners from sudden felony exposure but would also deter copy-cat legislation in neighboring states watching to see whether courts will treat Glock’s polymer-framed striker-fired design as outside the Second Amendment’s protection. In short, SAF’s motion is testing whether post-Bruen doctrine has teeth or whether incremental bans can still succeed by swapping one disfavored feature set for another.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes this case especially combustible is its collision with the Supreme Court’s instruction that modern analogues, not policy preferences, must justify restrictions on arms in common use. Glocks have been the dominant duty and defensive pistol for more than three decades; banning them is the functional equivalent of banning the AR-15 platform under a different name. If the district court grants the injunction, it will reinforce that “assault weapon” and “ghost gun” euphemisms cannot be stretched to cover the single most ubiquitous handgun in lawful commerce. A denial, conversely, would tee up an expedited appeal that could reach the Fourth Circuit while Bruen is still fresh precedent, giving gun owners across the mid-Atlantic a clearer map of which restrictions survive constitutional scrutiny.

For the broader 2A community the stakes are immediate and practical. Every day the ban remains on the books chills training, competition, and lawful carry by Maryland residents who already navigate some of the nation’s most restrictive permitting regimes. A swift injunction would not only protect current owners from sudden felony exposure but would also deter copy-cat legislation in neighboring states watching to see whether courts will treat Glock’s polymer-framed striker-fired design as outside the Second Amendment’s protection. In short, SAF’s motion is testing whether post-Bruen doctrine has teeth or whether incremental bans can still succeed by swapping one disfavored feature set for another.

Share this story