In a move that underscores just how far some states are willing to stretch the definition of “common use,” the Firearms Policy Coalition, joined by the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation, has asked a federal court to immediately halt Maryland’s latest attempt to criminalize the Glock platform. The motion for a preliminary injunction targets the state’s so-called “Glock ban,” which effectively outlaws the most popular handgun in America by reclassifying its design features as prohibited “assault weapons.” Rather than addressing actual crime, Maryland’s law singles out a firearm millions of law-abiding citizens rely on for self-defense, training, and sport—precisely the kind of restriction the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision was meant to foreclose.

What makes this litigation especially significant is the coalition’s decision to strike early and hard with a preliminary-injunction request. By asking the court to freeze enforcement before the law takes full effect, the groups are forcing Maryland to defend its policy under the exacting historical-tradition test Bruen demands, rather than letting the state drag the case out for years while rights are chilled. If the motion succeeds, it will send a clear signal to other jurisdictions eyeing similar copycat bans: courts are no longer willing to rubber-stamp novel restrictions simply because legislators label them “public safety” measures. For the broader Second Amendment community, the case is a reminder that victories are won not just at the Supreme Court but in the trenches of district-court briefing, where every new restriction must be met with swift, well-supported pushback.