SAF Sues Maryland Over Glock Ban Signed Into Law May 26
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on May 26, 2026, the same day Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 334 into law. The bill prohibits manufacturing, selling, transferring, or possessing Glocks and firearms meeting specific criteria. SAF challenged the law immediately, calling it an unconstitutional ban on a category of commonly owned firearms. The timing—filing within hours of Moore signing—signals SAF views this as a direct threat requiring urgent court intervention. Maryland joins a handful of states attempting outright bans on specific handgun models.
Background and Context
Senate Bill 334 emerged from Maryland's Democratic-controlled legislature after years of incremental gun restrictions. Moore, who took office in January 2023, campaigned on expanding gun control. Previous Maryland laws required fingerprint-based licensing for handgun purchases and banned certain modern rifles. SB 334 represents an escalation—moving from licensing requirements to category bans. The bill targets firearms with specific features, though the exact technical definition matters for legal challenge. SAF has a track record of courtroom wins, including McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and New York State Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Those rulings established that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership and that bans on commonly owned arms face strict scrutiny.
What This Means for Gun Owners
Maryland gun owners cannot legally possess, sell, or transfer Glocks under SB 334, effective immediately. Existing Glock owners face a choice: surrender the firearm, move out of state, or ignore the law and face criminal charges. The law applies to all Glock models, including the ubiquitous Glock 19 (9mm) and Glock 17 (9mm) carried by civilians nationwide. Other states have attempted similar bans—California's assault rifle restrictions and New York's magazine limits—but rarely blanket bans on specific handgun brands. If Maryland's law survives legal challenge, expect other blue states to copy the approach. For now, Maryland residents should consult an attorney before taking action.
Industry Impact
Glock, Inc., headquartered in Austria, cannot sell new firearms into Maryland under the ban. Licensed dealers in Maryland lose inventory and sales. Manufacturers who produce Glock-compatible parts—holsters, magazines, sights—face uncertainty about their legal status in-state. SAF's lawsuit protects not just Glock owners but the entire supply chain. If the ban survives court, other gun makers expect similar legislation targeting their models. Ammunition makers and accessory manufacturers watch closely; future bans could extend to ammunition types or aftermarket parts.
What to Watch Next
SAF's lawsuit will likely be filed in federal district court in Maryland or the Fourth Circuit. The case will hinge on whether Glocks count as "commonly owned" arms under Bruen—they certainly do, with millions in civilian use. Expect Maryland's attorney general to defend SB 334 aggressively. A ruling could come within 18 months, though appeals may extend the timeline. Meanwhile, SAF may seek an injunction to block enforcement while litigation proceeds. Other Second Amendment groups may join as amici curiae. Watch for similar bills in California, New York, and Illinois.
DownRange Bottom Line: Maryland just handed SAF a textbook case for killing blanket firearm bans under Bruen. The law is indefensible—Glocks are the most popular handguns in America. If you own firearms in Maryland, don't wait for the court to move. Talk to a Second Amendment attorney now about your options.
