U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley determined that the plaintiffs established a high likelihood of success on the merits, noting the statute is presumptively unconstitutional. The state failed to demonstrate that the ban, which targets handguns utilized by both the public for self-defense and the Connecticut State Police, aligns with historical American firearms regulation.

At the center of the dispute is Substitute House Bill No. 5043. The NSSF argues that state officials are punishing law-abiding owners rather than addressing criminal misuse. These firearms, which rely on a 44-year-old design, remain legal under federal law, with over 500,000 units sold annually across the country. According to Lawrence G. Keane, the NSSF’s senior vice president, the state’s concession that the law implicates the Second Amendment reinforces the need for a judicial hold. The legal battle now moves toward a full examination of whether the state can provide the historical analogues required by the Supreme Court’s Bruen test to justify such restrictions.