(The Center Square) – Gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against Maryland officials within hours of Gov. Wes Moore signing legislation restricting firearms classified by the state as “machine gun convertible pistols.”
The lawsuit, National Rifle Association v. Moore, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition against Moore, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and Maryland State Police leadership.
The challenge targets Senate Bill 334.
The legislation prohibits the manufacture, sale, offering for sale, purchase, receipt or transfer of certain firearms beginning Jan. 1, 2027, according to the Maryland General Assembly’s fiscal and policy analysis.
Under the law, a “machine gun convertible pistol” includes certain semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” that can be converted into machine guns using a pistol converter or similar conversion device.
The lawsuit says the law violates the Second Amendment by restricting firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes.
“Glock and Glock-style pistols are not relevantly different from any ordinary semiautomatic handgun,” the complaint states. “That is true even though they may be illegally modified.”
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said the law effectively targets some of the most widely owned handguns in the country.
“This Maryland law bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market today,” Kraut said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb also criticized the measure.
“You can’t stop criminal violence by broadening the law just to make everyone a criminal,” Gottlieb said. “That strategy never works.”
Supporters of the legislation say the measure is intended to address firearms that can be converted into machine guns through illegal modifications that supporters say have increasingly been used in crimes.
In a May 6 legal review letter to Moore, Brown’s office concluded the legislation had a “reasonable likelihood of withstanding Second Amendment scrutiny,” while acknowledging there was still legal uncertainty surrounding the proposal.
“Although it is our view that this bill is not clearly unconstitutional, I note that because pistol converters are an emerging technology that courts have not yet addressed in depth, it is uncertain how a court would rule,” Brown wrote.
Brown also acknowledged a court could determine the legislation amounts to a “back door ban” on firearms in common use, though his office argued the weapons could still fall outside the Second Amendment’s core protections because of how easily they can be converted into machine guns.
The attorney general’s office relied partly on the 4th Circuit’s ruling in Bianchi v. Brown, which upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban by finding some firearms can be regulated as excessively dangerous weapons not protected in the same way as arms commonly used for self-defense.
According to the bill’s fiscal analysis, Maryland expects implementation costs exceeding $220,000 in fiscal year 2027.
State analysts also warned Maryland State Police may not complete the prohibited firearms list before the law’s Jan. 1 effective date because of the number of firearms requiring evaluation.
The fiscal analysis noted the state’s handgun roster already includes more than 5,000 approved firearm models.
The law allows people who already legally possess firearms covered under the measure to transfer them to immediate family members who are otherwise legally allowed to possess firearms.
The Maryland Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.
The Center Square was unsuccessful prior to publication getting comment from Moore.
