SAF Escalates Maryland Glock Ban Challenge With Reply Brief
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a reply brief in Bathras v. Moore, its federal challenge to Maryland's Glock ban signed into law by Governor Wes Moore in 2026. SAF initiated the lawsuit in May and now pushes the court to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the ban's enforcement while the case proceeds. The reply brief responds to arguments Maryland filed defending the prohibition.
Key Details
Case name: Bathras v. Moore
Jurisdiction: Federal court, Maryland
Relief sought: Preliminary injunction to halt the Glock ban during litigation
Timing: SAF filed the lawsuit immediately after Governor Moore signed the ban into law in 2026; reply brief filed September 22, 2026
Core issue: Whether Maryland can categorically prohibit sale, transfer, and possession of Glock firearms under the Second Amendment and post-Bruen constitutional law
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If Maryland's ban survives preliminary injunction and appellate review, gun owners in the state face immediate criminal liability for owning Glocks—among the most popular defensive and competition firearms in America. A preliminary injunction would restore carry and ownership rights while courts evaluate the ban's constitutionality. The outcome signals whether states can unilaterally prohibit specific lawful firearm models post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Neighboring states and anti-gun legislatures nationwide watch closely; a federal court blocking the ban strengthens Second Amendment protections across the country. Gun owners in Maryland should monitor this case's progress and expect appellate decisions within months.
DownRange Analysis
Bruen requires laws to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Maryland cannot point to historical precedent for banning an entire modern firearm design. SAF's reply likely emphasizes that Glocks are in common use for lawful purposes—millions owned for self-defense and competition—making any categorical prohibition facially unconstitutional. The preliminary injunction standard favors SAF if it demonstrates likelihood of success and irreparable harm (loss of constitutional rights during litigation). Expect Maryland to lose this motion but fight through appeals. Gun owners should not delay legal acquisition or use of lawful firearms based on pending bans; federal court intervention remains probable.
