U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett denied the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motions in Bathras v. Moore. Maryland’s SB 334 ban on cruciform-trigger pistols remains in force. The order keeps the state’s restrictions on Glock-style handguns in effect while the challenge proceeds. Maryland did not lose the statute at the injunction stage. People subject to SB 334 remain under those restrictions as the case continues.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Maryland Glock ban case. The action is Bathras et al. v. Moore et al. Plaintiffs asked the district court to halt enforcement of SB 334 pending a decision on the merits. Judge Bennett denied those motions. Interim relief is off the table. The ban on cruciform-trigger pistols stays operational.
Maryland Attorney General Brown addressed the decision as keeping Maryland’s law on machine-gun convertible pistols in place. The Attorney General’s Office characterizes SB 334 as a law aimed at pistols it describes as machine-gun convertible. The plaintiffs’ challenge identifies the same statute as a ban on cruciform-trigger, Glock-style handguns. Those two descriptions attach to one enactment. The court left that enactment in place.
Denial of a preliminary injunction is a threshold ruling, not a final merits judgment. Bathras v. Moore is not over. SB 334 continues to restrict Glock-style handguns in Maryland during the remainder of the district-court proceedings. Plaintiffs must press their Second Amendment claims with the statute still in effect. The state continues to defend the ban.
The Constitution is not suspended because a preliminary injunction was denied. The Second Amendment secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. SB 334 is a Maryland statute. A federal district judge declined to freeze that statute at the start of the case. That procedural result does not repeal the Bill of Rights. State law yields when it collides with the Constitution. The oath of office runs to the Constitution first.
Maryland officials, including the Attorney General, remain bound by that oath while they enforce SB 334. The people of Maryland did not surrender the right to keep and bear arms when the state enacted a Glock-style pistol restriction. Cruciform-trigger pistols are the objects of this ban. The Second Amendment Foundation and the other Bathras plaintiffs are still in court to test whether that ban can stand against the right the Constitution already guarantees.
Bathras v. Moore now proceeds in federal district court with Maryland’s SB 334 restrictions on Glock-style handguns still in effect. Judge Richard D. Bennett’s denial resolved the preliminary-injunction motions against the plaintiffs. It did not end the constitutional challenge. The right to keep and bear arms remains the measure against which SB 334 will be judged as the case moves forward.
References
- https://oag.maryland.gov/News/pages/Attorney-General-Brown-on-Court-Ruling-Keeping-Maryland%E2%80%99s-Law-on-Machine-Gun-Convertible-Pistols-in-Place.aspx
- https://saf.org/saf-files-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-in-maryland-glock-ban-case/
- https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64848445/Bathras_et_al_v_Moore_et_al
- https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal