Critics Say Connecticut Found a New Way to Ban Glocks Without Ever Calling It a Glock Ban

Gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir says Connecticut has found a new way to ban Glock-style pistols without simply calling it a Glock ban.

In a new video, Noir argued that the state’s latest measure was sold to the public as a crackdown on illegal “Glock switches,” but in his view, the actual language reaches much farther than the tiny conversion devices that have already been illegal under federal law.

“Connecticut just banned the Glock,” Noir said at the start of his report. “Not the switch. Like the Glock. The gun.”

His central claim is simple but serious: lawmakers are not merely targeting illegal conversion devices. They are targeting the internal design of Glock and Glock-style handguns by focusing on what the law calls a “cruciform trigger bar.”

To Noir, that wording is the whole story.

A Bill Framed Around Switches

Noir opened by pointing to a clip from a 12 On Your Side report, which described Connecticut lawmakers working late into the night on a bill involving “certain Glock-style pistols.”

According to the report clip used in Noir’s video, lawmakers were concerned that components in those pistols could allow them to be converted into automatic weapons.

Noir said that language is where the public messaging and the legal text start to separate. He argued that viewers were being told the bill was about illegal Glock switches, while the actual law was written around pistol design features.

“Notice the language,” Noir said. “Certain Glock-style pistols, not switches, pistols.”

That distinction matters because a Glock switch is an external device used to illegally convert a semiautomatic pistol into a fully automatic weapon. A trigger bar, by contrast, is part of the firearm’s internal design.

Noir’s criticism is that lawmakers used public fear over switches to justify restrictions on the guns themselves.

The Three Words Noir Says Matter Most

The key phrase, according to Noir, is “cruciform trigger bar.”

He read from the Connecticut language, saying the ban would prohibit the importation or sale of a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that allows it to be easily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a fully automatic pistol.

Violations, he said, could be treated as a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both.

Noir described the cruciform trigger bar as “a little cross-shaped piece of metal inside the gun.” He stressed that it is not a switch, not an aftermarket attachment, and not the illegal device itself.

In his view, this makes the law much broader than its supporters suggest.

“They’re not describing a modification,” Noir said. “They’re describing the gun.”

That is the heart of his objection. If the state bans the sale of handguns based on an internal part associated with Glock-style operation, then critics can reasonably argue the law functions as a Glock ban even if it never uses that exact phrase.

And that kind of wording matters. Laws are often sold through simple public messaging, but enforced through exact definitions. Here, Noir says the definition is the weapon.

California, Maryland And Connecticut

Noir said Connecticut is not alone. He claimed California, Connecticut, and Maryland now follow the same general playbook.

According to Noir, California’s version is set to take effect July 1, Connecticut’s on October 1, and Maryland’s on January 1 of the following year.

He also pointed to a news clip about gun rights advocates suing Maryland after Gov. Wes Moore signed legislation restricting the manufacture, sale, or purchase of Glocks that can allegedly be converted into automatic weapons.

In that clip, Moore’s office defended the law by saying its responsibility was to “protect families, support law enforcement, and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”

Noir seized on that statement.

“The dangerous weapon you’re describing, Governor, is a standard issue sidearm for the cops you just said you support,” he said.

That line may be pointed, but it reflects a real contradiction in the politics of this issue. Glock-style pistols are among the most common handguns in civilian ownership, and they are also widely used by law enforcement agencies.

So when lawmakers describe them as unusually dangerous because of possible illegal modification, critics like Noir ask why the same design remains trusted in police holsters.

Already Illegal, Noir Says

A major part of Noir’s argument is that the item lawmakers claim to be targeting is already banned.

He said Glock switches are already federally prohibited because they turn pistols into machine guns. In the United States, a machine gun made after 1986 is already illegal for civilians to possess under federal law, with very narrow exceptions.

“We didn’t need a new law for the switch,” Noir said. “The switch has been illegal this whole time.”

That is why he says the new laws do not really hit the people they are supposed to hit. In his view, criminals using illegal switches are not buying them through normal retail channels or filling out federal firearms paperwork.

Instead, he argued, those devices are being imported, printed, machined, or otherwise obtained outside legal channels.

“The only person this law touches is a law-abiding citizen walking into a shop trying to buy a Glock the legal way,” Noir said.

This is a familiar gun-rights argument, but it lands sharply here because the law is framed around conversion risk rather than criminal possession of the conversion device itself.

If the prohibited device is already illegal, then the question becomes whether banning a legal platform is prevention or overreach.

Banning By Definition

Noir said the bigger danger is not just what happens to Glock sales in Connecticut, Maryland, or California. It is the method being used.

He argued that lawmakers cannot easily ban one of the most popular handguns in America by name because handguns in common use have strong constitutional protection under Supreme Court precedent.

So, he said, they do something else: they ban by definition.

“They don’t ban it by name,” Noir said. “They ban it by definition.”

He compared the wording to earlier gun-control labels such as “assault weapons” and “assault-style weapons,” arguing that lawmakers regularly invent new terms that sound dangerous enough to pass politically but are broad enough to cover firearms already owned by millions of ordinary people.

In this case, he said, the term is “convertible pistols” or similar machine-gun language.

The point is not just rhetorical. If a legislature can define a common internal feature as the basis for prohibition, that same strategy could be used again with a different part, a different platform, or a different category of firearm.

That is what makes gun owners nervous. It is rarely only about the first law. It is about the template.

A Fight Likely Headed For The Courts

Noir said Maryland’s lawsuit is the legal fight to watch because it could shape what happens elsewhere.

He suggested that if courts reject the “redefine it to ban it” approach in Maryland, it could weaken similar laws in California and Connecticut. If courts allow it, however, he warned the same model could spread.

Noir also noted that Connecticut’s bill included a provision allowing people to surrender guns and ammunition to the state. He framed that as another warning sign, saying it was attached to a law publicly described as being about illegal conversion devices.

That claim fits his broader theme: what is presented as narrow can become much broader once the text is read closely.

There is a fair point here even for readers who do not share Noir’s politics. Laws involving technical firearm design should be written with extreme precision, because small wording choices can affect huge categories of lawful ownership.

If lawmakers truly mean switches, they should write switch laws. If they mean Glock-style pistols, the public deserves to hear that plainly.

Noir closed by telling viewers to pay attention to the language being used, not just the headline version of the bill.

“Once you accept that they get to redefine a gun out of existence,” he said, “the only question left is which gun they redefine next.”

For supporters of the law, the issue is public safety and the growing criminal use of illegally converted pistols. For critics like Noir, it is a backdoor handgun ban dressed up as a machine-gun crackdown.

Either way, the debate is no longer just about a plastic switch. It is about whether states can restrict the sale of an entire class of common pistols by targeting the internal parts that make them work.