Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NSSF has followed through on its promise to challenge Connecticut’s new restrictions on certain striker-fired handguns.

The firearm industry trade association filed a federal lawsuit on September 21. It argues that House Bill 5043 violates the Second Amendment by blocking future sales of commonly owned semiautomatic pistols.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

NSSF is joined by Texas handgun manufacturer Shadow Systems and Connecticut retailer Blue Trail Range. The defendants include Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and the state’s attorneys overseeing Connecticut’s judicial districts.

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. et al. v. Griffin et al., No. 3:26-cv-01528.

What the Connecticut Law Actually Covers

HB 5043 takes effect October 1, 2026.

The disputed section applies to qualifying pistols manufactured on or after that date. It does not prohibit possession of currently owned pistols.

The law defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar. The trigger bar must also be accessible in a way that allows a conversion device to be installed after alteration by hand or with a common household tool.

These conversion devices are commonly called switches. They interfere with the trigger mechanism and allow a semiautomatic pistol to fire automatically.

Under HB 5043, knowingly importing, advertising, selling or offering a qualifying pistol for sale becomes a Class D felony. Violations can bring up to five years in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.

Manufacturers can avoid the classification by adding a permanent barrier to the pistol’s frame. That barrier must prevent a conversion device from reaching the cruciform trigger bar.

The law also classifies a pistol already equipped with a converter as a machine gun. NSSF and its fellow plaintiffs are not challenging that portion.

Possessing or installing an illegal conversion device is already prohibited under federal and Connecticut law.

Connecticut’s Public-Safety Argument

Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration argues that the law addresses the growing criminal use of machine gun conversion devices.

The governor’s office says federal agents recovered more than 31,000 conversion devices nationwide between 2019 and 2023. Hartford police reportedly seized 51 Glock switches during 2023 and 2024.

Lamont has described HB 5043 as a forward-looking safety standard. Manufacturers wishing to sell newly produced pistols in Connecticut must design them to resist the installation of switches.

“Machine gun conversion devices pose an extreme public safety risk,” Lamont said when announcing the legislation.

Supporters contend that prohibiting the devices alone has not stopped criminals from obtaining and installing them.

NSSF’s Second Amendment Claim

NSSF argues that Connecticut is responding to criminal alterations by restricting the unmodified firearm.

The complaint says cruciform-trigger pistols are widely selected for self-defense, recreational shooting and law-enforcement use. Glock pioneered the design, but numerous manufacturers now produce similar handguns.

NSSF identifies Glock, Shadow Systems, Ruger, Derya, Palmetto State Armory and Beretta-affiliated companies among manufacturers offering pistols built around the design.

SEE ALSO: PTR 9KT MP5K Build: My $5,008 Dream Gun

The plaintiffs rely heavily on District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Those decisions protect firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes, according to the complaint.

NSSF contends that states may ban machine guns and conversion devices. It argues they cannot ban an entire category of unmodified handguns because criminals might alter them.

The lawsuit compares the issue to rifles and shotguns that could be illegally shortened with a saw. Historically, lawmakers punished the unlawful modification instead of banning the original firearm, the plaintiffs argue.

NSSF also says it found no historical tradition supporting Connecticut’s approach.

Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Claim Direct Harm

Shadow Systems says none of its current cruciform-trigger handguns includes the permanent barrier required by Connecticut.

According to the complaint, the company shipped more than $530,000 in cruciform-trigger handguns into Connecticut between 2021 and August 2026.

Blue Trail Range says the affected handguns represent a significant part of its retail business. The Wallingford company would need to remove newly manufactured qualifying pistols from its inventory once the law takes effect.

The plaintiffs argue that lost sales, compliance costs and alleged constitutional injuries cannot be repaired later through monetary damages.

Emergency Injunction Requested

Alongside the complaint, NSSF filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs want the court to stop enforcement while the lawsuit proceeds. Alternatively, they have requested a temporary restraining order delaying the law’s October 1 effective date.

The lawsuit contains one constitutional claim under the Second Amendment. It seeks declaratory relief, temporary and permanent injunctions, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

No court has ruled on the merits.

The central question is now clear. Connecticut calls HB 5043 a product-safety measure aimed at illegal machine gun conversions. NSSF calls it an unconstitutional ban on future sales of common, unmodified handguns.

With the effective date approaching, the first fight will be whether a judge pauses the law before October 1.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search