While I can get the issue some have with so-called Glock switches and those who use them, even if I disagree with it, the idea of banning the most popular model of handgun in the country is, to put it mildly, constitutionally dicey. That's me trying to be nice, too, because the truth is that "dicey" is an understatement.
A more accurate way to put it is that there's not much chance of it surviving legal challenge, nor of it actually doing much good.
As it is, the so-called iron pipeline will just bring Glocks into states that have banned them. Plus, let's remember that the auto sears are already illegal, are prohibited under federal law, and that sure hasn't stopped the bad guys from getting them.
Still, Connecticut banned Glocks.
Glock Inc. and gun rights activists sued Connecticut in separate complaints on Monday, challenging a ban on Glock-style semiautomatic handguns set to take effect soon.
Starting Oct. 1, a state law will make it a felony to sell semiautomatic weapons known as cruciform-trigger handguns. The term refers to the cross-shaped trigger bar that moves back and down to release the firing pin when the trigger is pulled. The design is easy to modify with “switches” to enable fully automatic fire, prompting restrictions in several states including New York, California and Maryland.
Under Connecticut’s legislation, the “convertible pistols” will be illegal to sell or possess.
But the plaintiff gunmakers and advocacy groups say the cruciform design makes weapons less likely to discharge accidentally, fueling their popularity. According to the plaintiffs, hundreds of thousands of cruciform-trigger handguns are made in the U.S. each year, and the weapons are used by Connecticut state troopers.
“If Connecticut can ban cruciform-trigger handguns because of the risk that criminals can convert them into fully automatic machine guns, then it could ban ‘virtually any semiautomatic weapon’ for the same reason,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., a trade association for the firearm, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries, writes in its lawsuit.
The NSSF is right. If they can get away with this, they can get away with banning just about anything simply by prohibiting some part of the design. Keep that up, and there won't be any guns that would be safe, which goes directly against the Second Amendment.
It would be one thing if some design element were flawed and risked danger to the shooter, but that's not what's happening here. Not in the least.
Let's remember that the design predates the switches. Gaston Glock developed the gun, then a third party figured out how to build an auto-sear and made that a thing. Glock has played no part in the conversion, so calling these "convertible pistols" is such a misnomer, as it implies they're designed to be convertible.
Glock is being punished because of something it played no role in. More accurately, it's being punished for refusing to bend the knee and dismantle its proven design just to appease the very people who don't seem satisfied with anything other than complete disarmament.
I don't blame them for refusing, and I don't blame them for filing a lawsuit. Connecticut deserves to be dragged into court, and to lose, because this was always too far.
For what it's worth, though, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong intends to defend the law, which is thoroughly unsurprising.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member