Posted: 4/22/2026 10:22:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: sbhaven][Edited]
|
Update: Lamont signs HB-5043 (Glock Ban Bill). PDF version: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00041-R00HB-05043-PA.PDF Word version: https://search.cga.state.ct.us/dl2026/PA/DOC/2026PA-00041-R00HB-05043-PA.DOCX Bill home page: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5043 Post edited to remove older information since this is now a done deal. |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
291
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
|
State posted this Fiscal Note for HB-5043 as amended by the House. Fiscal Note for HB-5043, As Amended by House "A" (LCO 4469) The OLR Bill Analysis for HB-5043 as amended by the House: Bill Analysis for HB-5043, as amended by House "A" |
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: The OLR Bill Analysis for HB-5043 as amended by the House: Bill Analysis for HB-5043, as amended by House "A" Originally Posted By sbhaven: The OLR Bill Analysis for HB-5043 as amended by the House: Bill Analysis for HB-5043, as amended by House "A" AN ACT CONCERNING CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS AND UNFINISHED FRAMES OR UNFINISHED LOWER RECEIVERS. TABLE OF CONTENTS: SUMMARY §§ 1–4 — CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS AND RATE OF FIRE ENHANCEMENTS Generally makes it a class D felony to knowingly import into Connecticut or knowingly advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale any convertible pistol manufactured on or after October 1, 2026; I've seen this language multiple times now. Correct me if I am wrong but does this legislation as written create Pre-Ban and Post Ban Glocks with the delineation being the manufacture date of 10/1/2026? |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: I've seen this language multiple times now. Correct me if I am wrong but does this legislation as written create Pre-Ban and Post Ban Glocks with the delineation being the manufacture date of 10/1/2026? Yes, that's the way it's written. There will be preban (pre 10/1/2026 manufacture) and post ban (on or after 10/1/2026 manufacture) "convertible pistols". Until some time in the future when Democrats simply do away with prebans like they've done in the past with the preban AWB's. If I understood the House changes correctly, this will be how the House amended version of HB-5043's new section 3 will read: Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2026) (a) Any individual or firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or other similar entity that knowingly imports into this state or knowingly advertises, sells, offers or exposes for sale any convertible pistol, as defined in section 53-202 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, that was manufactured on or after October 1, 2026, shall be guilty of a class D felony. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to sale at retail or other lawful transfer of a convertible pistol by a person who is not a licensed gun dealer to another person who is not a licensed gun dealer. There is some question about how exactly that section 3 will work if implemented as written. In part due to all face to face (non licensed gun dealers) having to go through a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to comply with CT's existing pistol sales statute process (including the NICS background check). There is also the use of the word "imports" and what exactly that means in context of the new section. There are other elements of the bill that are going to be an issue or will require more clarification how it works if this bill is enacted. Plus the House amended bill still has to get run through the Senate who may further amend the bill as well. 
|
|
HB-5043 Update: Senate Republicans Submit 9 Amendments (05/04/2026) Senate Republicans submitted a number of amendments to HB-5043. So far all are marked as "uncalled". Typically Republican submitted amendments to gun bills do not garner enough Democrat votes for passage to amend the bill they're attached to since the Democrats have overwhelming control of the Senate. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5043 Several of the amendments proposed interesting things including pushing back the date of enactment to 2027 to study and review if any crimes are committed by lawfully purchased "convenable pistols" equipped with a "pistol converter". Another amendment proposes instructing DESPP to create and publicly pubish a list of pistols affected by the "convenable pistol" ban and keep it updated. Another amendment (one proposed before) proposed that DESPP/SLFU obtain an FFL so it can process the NICS requests for private face to face transfers which currently require going through an FFL. Uncalled Amendments Senate LCO Amendment #5778 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5836 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5837 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5776 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5777 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5779 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5833 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5834 (R) (doc) Senate LCO Amendment #5835 (R) (doc) Fiscal Notes Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5778 (No Fiscal Impact) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5776 (No Fiscal Impact) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5777 (Cost) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5779 (No Fiscal Impact) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5833 (Potential Cost) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5834 (No Fiscal Impact) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5835 (Minimal Fiscal Impact) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5836 (See Fiscal Note Details) Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 5837 (No Fiscal Impact) |
|
Senate Overnight Adopts House Version Of HB-5043 Glock Ban Bill (05/06/2026) As expected, in a late night session the Senate adopted the House amended version of HB-0543. So the bill continues to move forward in the legislative process. The bill is still being debated this morning. Watch live on CTN: https://ct-n.com/CTNplayer.asp?livestream=0 https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5043 Called Amendments Senate Schedule C LCO# 5776 (R) [doc] Senate Schedule A LCO# 5835 (R) [doc] Bill History 5/5/2026 Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule C 5776 5/5/2026 Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule B 5777 5/6/2026 Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule A 5835 5/5/2026 Senate Adopted House Amendment Schedule A |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: I see nothing in the Bill that exempts Police or Military. Have they just banned all CT police departments from issuing "cruciform" pistols manufactured on or after 10/1/2026? Possession isn't banned, just the importation, advertise for sale, and sales of the "convertible pistols" that were manufactured on or after 10/1/2026. No exemption for the usual Kings Men in this one, which is a first. Lots of questions about how this bill will work in the real world. |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: I see nothing in the Bill that exempts Police or Military. Have they just banned all CT police departments from issuing "cruciform" pistols manufactured on or after 10/1/2026? Did Smith & Wesson sponsor this Bill? fuck the mil. le exemptions and their "rules for thee but not for me" attitude within the kings men. there should be no exemptions for any class. they should follow the same laws that we need to. no exceptions. time for FFL's to nut up and push back on gun laws by stopping exempt sales. |
|
Report them.... Specifically see 9:58 - 10:06  MASSIVE BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP ANNOUNCES MAJOR SCOTUS AR-15 UPDATE! |
|
Originally Posted By Gordo556: fuck the mil. le exemptions and their "rules for thee but not for me" attitude within the kings men. there should be no exemptions for any class. they should follow the same laws that we need to. no exceptions. time for FFL's to nut up and push back on gun laws by stopping exempt sales. Glock was on both sides in Bristol. Attached File Attached File I never knew until I read the full report. One 27 Yard head shot ended it. Why take away a good firearm? |
|
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: Glock was on both sides in Bristol. I never knew until I read the full report. One 27 Yard head shot ended it. Why take away a good firearm? No one’s taking your Glock. Read the bill. They are not above us. I think you missed my point..i guess I need to spell out for you that this new law does nothing, and I’m against any and all gun regulations, and I’m glad there is no mil le exemption. 
|
|
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: Why take away a good firearm? They are not banning possession (yet) of Glocks. They'll likely be back next year, or soon after to do that. What they're trying to do with this bill is ban the future importation, advertisement, and sale of certain Glocks (and other affected "convertible" pistols) that were manufactured on or after 10/1/2026. The bill's language trying to ban post 10/1/2026 manufactured Glock sales is terribly written (no surprise) and there are questions about how exactly some of it will work when 10/1 hits due to the confusing language in the bill. |
|
Originally Posted By PGAEMU: I am curious as to what other striker fire guns are gonna be in this catch all. Hopefully CCDL will put out their interpretation with some sort of list. The law is very vague. One of the republican senate proposed amendment would have required the state to provide just that. A list of all affected convertible pistols. Democrats predicably reject that amendment and every other republican amendment. Some are speculating that the Ruger RXM, PSA Dagger, Shadow Systems pistols would be impacted along with Gen 1 through Gen 5 Glocks. Some think even Gen V and Gen 6 Glocks would still be affected due to this language in bold; ""Convertible pistol" does not include (A) any hammer-fired semiautomatic pistol, or (B) any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that has a tab or other piece of material molded to the pistol's frame that shields the cruciform trigger bar from interference by a pistol converter, unless the tab or other piece of material can be readily removed from the pistol's frame." What does "readily removed" mean? Further there is some confusion over the sales ban language for FFLs. Its possible, depending on the interpretation of the new sales ban language, that FFL's won't be able to conduct the "lawful transfer of a convertible pistol by a person who is not a licensed gun dealer to another person who is not a licensed gun dealer". The whole thing is an intentional confusing shit show. |
|
Everything in this Bill appears to hinge on "Cruciform Trigger Bar". I just happened to notice that the Timney Alpha Competition Series For Glock Gen 6 does not have a Cruciform Triger Bar. This is a Gen 3-4 trigger pic but the design is the same. Used to illustrate the lack of a Cruciform!  Theoretically would a Glock pattern pistol with a Timney or Timney like trigger bar be legal to Import, Transfer, Sell... even if manufactured after 10/1/2026? |
|
Originally Posted By T-TAC: In the Gangster era they coverted 1911's to full auto. And the NRA is nowhere to be found when anything happens in CT. For all practical purposes, the NRA doesn't really exist anymore. They certainly don't accomplish anything significant anyway. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
The NRA is pretty much useless and stays on the sidelines now. They still try to get donations. CCDL is about the same. They both have done nothing and stay silent but are not afraid to beg for money. There are much better organizations to donate to. Ones that actually do something. |
|
Originally Posted By edgephoto: They both have done nothing and stay silent but are not afraid to beg for money. CCDL at least has a lawsuit challenging CT's AWB being petitioned to SCOTUS, NRA not so much. CCDL at least had a legislative day where they tried to get people to meet with their legislators, NRA not so much. CCDL at least puts out information about the bills and how to fight them, NRA not so much. CCDL has their issues, and their easy to bash. But if more gun owners (at least the 200,000+ permit holders) got involved instead of just sitting on the side lines complaining, its possible things might slowly change in this state. How many of those people complaining from their keyboards are going to vote for the very same politicians who just voted for HB5043? How many gun owners do the same? How many will vote, donate and support, year after year, for the very people taking their rights away all while complaining about the state's gun laws? |
|
Originally Posted By nutter: More dooooooooom Attached File Attached File Attached File |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
307
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
|
Originally Posted By middletownbob: if gun owners and those with permits voted they could put the commies out of business, but they dont!  Oh there are a good number of gun owners who vote. Problem many of them vote Democrat every single election because reasons. They place other issues above their guns/2A rights. They'll vote for the people who vote for HB5043, then turn around and bitch and moan about their guns being banned by the very people and political party they just voted for who loudly and proudly say they want to ban guns. They'll offer up all sorts of excuses as to why, but none of those excuses changes things or punishes the very people taking their gun(s) away. If those folks want things to change they have to be willing to vote for candidates who don't ban guns. One suggestion offered by some writer online (cannot find the article at the moment) was for Democrat gun owners, in mass, to vote for Republicans in one of the legislative bodies to flip control of one of the two houses to the Republicans for one election cycle. Show Democrats that there is a cost and punishment to their continual push to ban guns. That might get the politicians to listen to the electorate rather than ignoring the overwhelming electorate opposition to bills like HB5043. Doubt that will happen though. |
|
I like fat black and ugly stuff.Attached File Except for the bears that eat my garbage. Attached File |
|
HB-5043 is now Public Act No. 26-41. PDF version: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00041-R00HB-05043-PA.PDF Word version: https://search.cga.state.ct.us/dl2026/PA/DOC/2026PA-00041-R00HB-05043-PA.DOCX Bill home page: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5043 |
Hour plus long roundtable discussion on HB-5043 with Lock N Load Firearms, Patriotware Holsters, Gun Guru and Connecticut Gun Bench. HB 5043 Passed: Connecticut’s New Gun Ban Is Here Gun Guru video summary: HB 5043 has officially passed the Connecticut House and Senate, and now the 2A Roundtable is breaking down what Connecticut’s newest gun ban really means for gun owners, FFLs, police departments, and the future of firearm sales in this state. In this episode, Josh, Michele, Derek, and Todd discuss the late-night Senate debate, Senator Rob Sampson’s amendments, the confusing language around “convertible pistols,” what this could mean for Glock Gen 5 and Gen 6 models, and why this bill creates serious problems for gun stores and lawful gun owners. This isn’t just about Glocks. It’s about Connecticut continuing to restrict lawful firearm ownership while ignoring the criminals who were already breaking the law. We also talk about what happens next, possible legal challenges, and why gun owners need to wake up, get involved, and vote. |
Connecticut Gun Bench: Glocks Are Flying Off The Shelves For All The Wrong Reasons As The Ban Is Set To Be Signed Into Law GLOCKS ARE FLYING OFF THE SHELVES FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS As The Ban Is Set To Be Signed Into Law! Connecticut Gun Bench: A feeding frenzy is in full swing as gun stores can't keep Glocks in stock. But this is an example of "Too little, too late.." "Glock Ban creates a buying frenzy, what it should have done is create a motivated voting base to end the Democrat monopoly...." "We as gun owners in this state should be more proactive. I think there is over 300,000 permits if not more. Yet, we do not vote as a voting block. We keep allowing Democrats to maintain this power that they've had as a singularity for decades. " |
|
Originally Posted By edgephoto: If you like your Glock, you can keep your Glock....... For now....  The basic consensus from the round table video above was they rammed this one through intentionally, knowing they are going to go back either in a special session this year, or in next year's legislative session, and revise and update to actually ban Glocks. They'll "fix" things like the lack of military/law enforcement exemption. Listening to the some of the Democrats talk during the House and Senate debate on this bill, it was clear their mission is to ban all Glock, period. One legislator made it very clear the intention is to use Firearm Industry Accountability Act, enacted last year, as a fallback when and if needed. |
|
As expected, Lamont signed HB-5043. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5043 Bill History 5/26/2026 Signed by the Governor |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
311
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
saw the POS' campaign speech and the whole speech was zeroed in the 47th President DJT, comments have been nationalized and repeated on Fox news...cant wait till to see what happens in the santuary!! TDS is alive and well in hartford, since Bradley airport is national the Trump admin wilkl go after $$$$' 
|
|
Lock N Load Podcast: Connecticut’s Glock Ban Q&A: The Questions the State CAN’T Answer Video summary: Connecticut’s Glock Ban is now officially law — and gun owners still have a lot of unanswered questions. In this episode of the Lock N Load Podcast, Josh breaks down viewer questions about HB5043, now Public Act 26-41, including what happens after the October 1st effective date, whether current Glock owners are affected, how FFLs are supposed to verify manufacture dates, what happens if a Glock frame breaks, whether you can still carry one, buy parts, sell pre-ban models, or move into Connecticut with one. The biggest problem? The State still hasn’t provided a clear list of exactly which firearms are affected. This Q&A covers the questions Connecticut gun owners are asking — and the questions the State can’t seem to answer. Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. For legal questions, contact an attorney familiar with Connecticut firearms law.  Connecticut’s Glock Ban Q&A: The Questions the State CAN’T Answer |
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
313
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
|
Originally Posted By middletownbob: NSSF files lawsuit against the lamont people.....yes!  Won't be surprised if the court tosses it on lack of standing because the law isn't in effect yet. NSSF Will Challenge Connecticut’s Unconstitutional Ban on Popular Striker-Fired Handguns NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, will seek to challenge Connecticut’s ban on popular striker-fire handguns following Gov. Ned Lamont’s signature prohibiting the sale of these firearms in the state. The misguided law unconstitutionally infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Connecticut residents by prohibiting an entire class of lawfully made and sold handguns. Connecticut’s law targeting “convertible pistols” infringes on the right of citizens to purchase the most-popular-selling handguns that are used for self-defense and renowned for their reliability. Connecticut is unconstitutionally infringing on Second Amendment rights while ignoring criminals who violate federal and state law to illegally modify these handguns to attach a “machinegun conversion device,” or MCD, which is illegal to both possess or to attach to a firearm outside of strict federal licensing. The firearm industry warns gun owners against illegal modifications that override intentional semiautomatic firearm engineering designs. Illegally modifying a firearm to enable automatic fire is a federal crime. “To borrow on a line from James Carville, whom Democrats revere, ‘it’s the criminal, stupid,’” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “This law, and similar laws passed in other states, punishes law-abiding citizens by infringing on their Second Amendment rights to legally obtain the firearms they choose to protect themselves and their families against criminals who, by definition, have no respect for life or law. Instead of enforcing the law and holding these criminals accountable, Connecticut’s elected officials pander to gun control donors and antigun special interests to scapegoat the industry and ban an entire class of ordinary firearms, which the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision clearly holds violates the U.S. Constitution. Governor Lamont knew this yet didn’t hesitate to trample on the Second Amendment.” Under Connecticut’s Substitute for H.B. No. 5043, the ban includes pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that Connecticut lawmakers say can be readily converted by replacing the slide backplate with an illegal MCD. The proposed ban will take effect Oct. 1, 2026. NSSF warns gun owners to stay on the “Right Side of LegalTM” when making improvements or customizing firearms. The Firearm Industry Trade Association warns that modifying a firearm by adding an illegal device that overrides the original, intended function or design to render a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic firearm is a felony. That includes importing, possessing, making or selling an MCD. It’s a violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years and up to $250,000 in fines. |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: A Glock Armorer point out that the Glock Performance Trigger does not have a "Cruciform Trigger Bar". Sounds like Glocks with the performance trigger installed are good to import, transfer and sell. Now for the Doom part. It's CT, there is ALWAYS a Doom part. Don't forget the stupid Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (enacted last year) is lurking around in the background while all this is going on, just waiting to be used as threatened by one Democrat lawmaker when discussing HB-5043. He commented to the effect that if Glocks weren't banned by the HB-5043 bill then they'd use FIRA to go after Glocks (by going after the dealers including Glock themselves). It was strongly hinted that they were going to ban all Glocks one way or another. Sec. 52-571p. Responsibilities of firearm industry member. Prohibited acts. (a) A firearm industry member shall establish, implement and enforce reasonable controls. ... (c) No firearm industry member shall purposely and knowingly direct its advertising, marketing or promotions of firearm industry products in this state in a manner that it knows would promote unlawful sales, promote unlawful use or promote unreasonable risk to public safety. Sec. 52-571o. Definitions. (4) "Reasonable controls" means procedures, acts and practices that are designed, implemented and enforced to do all of the following: .... (C) Prevent the sale or distribution in this state of a firearm industry product that is designed in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable to promote conversion of a legal firearm industry product into an illegal firearm industry product. |
Couple of CT guntubers kick around the Glock performance trigger. How To Make A Glock Connecticut Legal #glock #2a #ctguns |
|
As usual. Another year, another media splash presser by Lamont to tout enacting more anti rights, anti gun, legislation. Never mind he signed the bill on 5/26/2026. Lamont to sign gun legislation for National Gun Violence Awareness Day Friday is National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to hold a bill-signing ceremony for gun violence prevention legislation. The ceremony will mark the enactment of a new gun law proposed by the governor. The law bans the sale and importation of certain types of firearms that have been manufactured in a way that enables them to be easily converted into automatic machine guns (Public Act 26-41). The ceremony will take place at Dixwell Community House (Q House) in New Haven at 11 a.m. Lamont will be joined by state and local officials and groups of advocates who support gun violence prevention laws. Lamont is also expected to participate in a youth-led gun violence prevention roundtable and rally in Newtown on Friday. |
|
The ghetto rats don't give a shit if Lamont signed it last year, last month, or today. It won't affect them. They will still get their Glocks and switches and shoot anyone they want to. Socialist and communist traitors like Lamont always celebrate disarming people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc did. FNL |
|
Originally Posted By group8: The ghetto rats don't give a shit if Lamont signed it last year, last month, or today. It won't affect them. They will still get their Glocks and switches and shoot anyone they want to. Socialist and communist traitors like Lamont always celebrate disarming people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc did. FNL Absofuckenlutely! Truer words have never been spoken! |
Joined:
Nov 2023
Posts:
255
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
|
Originally Posted By group8: The ghetto rats don't give a shit if Lamont signed it last year, last month, or today. It won't affect them. They will still get their Glocks and switches and shoot anyone they want to. Socialist and communist traitors like Lamont always celebrate disarming people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc did. FNL Exactly! |