Connecticut Democrats have advanced legislation banning the sale, distribution, and transportation of Glock handguns and other striker-fired pistols with a cruciform trigger bar, but one of the bill's primary sponsor appears to be completely ignorant about the scope of the recent changes the company has made to its products.
Rep. Steven Stafstrom is leading the charge for HB 5043, which was introduced by Gov. Ned Lamont earlier this year. Speaking after the House Judiciary committee approved the legislation, Stafstrom made his pitch for why the bill should be approved.
"It prevents Glock from selling new firearms in the state until they've made modifications," Stafstrom said in an interview after the committee's afternoon meeting.
He noted Glock has made modifications to pistols sold in both California and Germany to prevent them from automatic fire.
"Glock can make this change, they just so far have chosen not to do it," Stafstrom said. "The point of this legislation is to push them to make this change."
I don't know where Stafstrom is getting his information, but he's completely wrong here. Glock didn't make any modifications to pistols sold in California, and the changes to models sold in Germany were meant to comply with technical requirements for German law enforcement, not civilian purchase.
Last fall Glock announced it was ending production of dozens of existing models and would be rolling out its Glock V series; not just in California, but across the United States. The V series doesn't have the same cruciform trigger bar that anti-gunners have complained about, so if Stafstrom believes that the V series complies with California's ban, then it should comply with Stafstrom's bill as well.
But even if the changes that Glock has made would render Safstrom's bill moot as far as sales of new handguns go, HB 5043 still poses an existential threat to many gun owners who might travel through the state with their lawfully-owned Glock. Under the bill, "any individual... that, within this state... transports or imports into the state... any convertible pistol, as defined in section 53-202 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, shall be guilty of a class D felony."
That's punishable by five years in prison. And while there are exceptions for law enforcement (because police are exempt from virtually every bill pushed by the gun control lobby), travelers are not exempt. You could legally own a pre-V series Glock in your home state and be able to legally possess it in the state you're traveling to, but once you cross over into Connecticut you're committing a felony just for having one of the most commonly owned handguns in the country in your possession.
What about Connecticut residents? The way I read HB 5043, current owners could still transport their Glocks because they're not "transporting or importing into the state" a gun that is already located in Connecticut. A zealous cop or prosecutor, though, might disagree with that interpretation. At the very least, though, those traveling through Connecticut could be charged with a felony for their lawfully-purchased and possessed firearm.
It's possible that language will be amended at some point, but even if that happens the entire bill is a flagrant assault on our Second Amendment rights by banning a firearm that is unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes. The NRA, SAF, and FPC hve already filed a lawsuit challenging California's ban, and I suspect groups like Connecticut Citizens Defense League are prepping for litigation in conjunction with national organizations as well if HB 5043 does become law.
The Heller decision put a complete ban on handguns beyond the reach of the anti-gunners, so now they've switched their strategy to focus on banning handguns bit by bit. Today it's Glocks and striker-fired pistols. But if these bills stand we know what's coming next; bans on all semi-automatic handguns. The gun control lobby has already argued that semi-automatic rifles are actually more dangerous than machine guns, so why wouldn't they apply that same argument to semi-automatic pistols as well?
The gun control lobby is good about playing the long game, and they don't give up when they suffer a setback, even one as significant as Heller. We're watching this play out in real time in states like Connecticut, and the big question is whether or not SCOTUS will put a stop to it when it has the chance.
