Published July 13, 2026 at 4:12 PM ET · Updated July 13, 2026 at 7:34 PM ET
Maryland defends Glock ban by classifying common pistols as machine guns
1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
Maryland is defending its ban on Glock pistols by arguing that the commonly owned handguns qualify as machine guns under state law. The classification is being used to justify prohibiting firearms that are widely held by civilians.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 hr ago, when AmmoLand reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from AmmoLand. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Caetano held the Second Amendment reaches all bearable arms and that a weapon cannot be excluded merely because it was not in common use at the founding; protection turns on whether arms are commonly used today. Glocks are among the most common pistols in America. Under Bruen, Maryland must show a historical tradition of banning such weapons rather than relabeling them as machine guns.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
