New York lawmakers slipped two gun-control measures into the state's Fiscal Year 2027 budget, one of which bans the entire Glock family of pistols, and Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the package into law, bypassing any standalone vote or focused public debate on either provision.

The provisions landed on page 10 of a 314-page budget document, the Daily Caller reported. One law targets Glock handguns. The other creates what Hochul's office called a "first in the nation" restriction on using 3D printers to manufacture firearms or firearms parts.

Both measures were inserted into a multi-document budget package passed by the heavily Democratic state Legislature. Neither received the kind of committee hearings, floor debate, or public scrutiny that a standalone firearms bill would ordinarily attract. The budget process gave Albany's supermajority a vehicle to enact sweeping gun restrictions while the public's attention was fixed on spending numbers.

A ban that covers the guns police carry

The Glock ban is the higher-profile of the two provisions. Glock pistols are among the most popular handguns in the United States, used by civilians and law enforcement agencies alike. The Glock 19X model alone moved more than 100,000 units within six months of its introduction, Glock reported in a 2018 press release. Publications such as Guns and Guns and Ammo frequently list Glock models among the nation's top-selling firearms.

National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman Mark Oliva told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the ban covers "the same handguns that New York State Police use." That detail alone frames the contradiction: the state trusts Glock pistols in the holsters of its own troopers but now forbids ordinary New Yorkers from purchasing them.

Oliva said the NSSF had been warning Albany since January, when Hochul first called for the ban. The warnings went unheeded.

"They ignored warnings that their ban on the same handguns that New York State Police use is unconstitutional. They were warned that the state would again find itself in court attempting to defend the indefensible act of robbing New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights. Governor Kathy Hochul and New York lawmakers learned nothing from the lessons of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision."

The Bruen decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, handed down by the Supreme Court in June 2022, struck down New York's discretionary concealed-carry permit law on Second Amendment grounds. That ruling put Albany on notice that courts would scrutinize firearms restrictions under a historical-tradition test. Yet here the Legislature is again, daring the judiciary to intervene.

The 3D-printer provision

The second law targets 3D printers used to manufacture firearms or firearms parts. Hochul's office promoted it as a first-of-its-kind measure. NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford pushed back sharply, telling the Daily Caller News Foundation that the restriction would punish law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop criminals.

"Banning or restricting 3D printers won't disarm criminals, who already ignore every gun law on the books, but it will strip responsible citizens of their right to make lawful firearms at home, a practice as old as our Republic itself."

Commerford called the effort "pure political theater that does nothing to enhance public safety." Home manufacture of firearms for personal use has a long tradition in the United States, predating the Constitution itself. Criminalizing the technology used to exercise that right raises questions Albany has not publicly answered, including what enforcement mechanism or penalties the new law imposes.

The pattern is familiar in New York, where lawmakers have voted to enshrine sanctuary state protections and other progressive priorities with minimal public deliberation. The budget process has become a favored tool for avoiding accountability on divisive measures.

The 'Glock switch' pretext

Some lawmakers who pushed the Glock ban justified it as a response to so-called "Glock switches", illegal devices used to convert semi-automatic Glock pistols into fully automatic weapons. But that justification collapses under the weight of existing law.

Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922 already prohibits possession or manufacture of fully automatic firearms unless the weapon is registered or approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NSSF's RightSideofLegal.org website notes that possessing a machine-gun conversion device can lead to ten years in federal prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

In other words, the criminal conduct Albany claims to target is already a serious federal felony. Banning an entire family of lawfully sold pistols because criminals attach illegal devices to them is like banning sedans because some drivers exceed the speed limit. The logic punishes the law-abiding while doing nothing to deter people who already ignore federal firearms statutes.

Oliva made the point directly. The NSSF spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Albany's approach reveals "their contempt for their own citizens and the U.S. Constitution, along with the continued coddling of criminals when they attack those who obey the law and refuse to hold criminals accountable for their crimes."

Legal challenges ahead

Both the NSSF and the NRA-ILA signaled that litigation is coming. Oliva said the NSSF will "again find ourselves in court defending the ability for law-abiding citizens to purchase lawfully-made and sold firearms." He added that Hochul "has no concerns about wasting taxpayer dollars in vain attempts to infringe on those rights."

That last point deserves emphasis. New York has already lost at the Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds in Bruen. The state responded to that loss not by adjusting its approach but by passing new restrictions that gun-rights groups say repeat the same constitutional errors. Each round of litigation costs New York taxpayers money, money spent defending laws that courts may well strike down.

It is a cycle that benefits no one except the politicians who get to campaign on having "done something" about guns. The taxpayers foot the legal bills. The law-abiding gun owners lose access to widely used, lawfully manufactured firearms. And the criminals who use Glock switches continue to face the same federal penalties they already face, and already ignore.

This is hardly the first time New York's political leaders have pushed ambitious mandates only to face practical and legal resistance. The state's track record of overreach followed by retreat, or courtroom defeat, grows longer by the session.

The budget maneuver

Perhaps the most telling detail is the method. Albany did not introduce a standalone Glock-ban bill, hold committee hearings, invite expert testimony, or subject the measure to a recorded floor vote where every lawmaker's position would be on the record. Instead, the provisions were tucked into a sprawling budget document, page 10 of 314 pages, and moved through as part of a must-pass spending package.

Budget bills in state legislatures routinely carry "trailer" provisions that have nothing to do with fiscal policy. The practice is bipartisan, but its use to enact firearms bans without dedicated debate is a particular affront to voters who expect transparency on constitutional questions. State legislatures across the country have drawn scrutiny for using procedural vehicles to advance consequential changes with minimal public input.

Hochul's office, for its part, was not shy about the outcome. The governor's release touted the Glock ban and the 3D-printer law after the budget was signed. So the administration was happy to take credit, just not willing to give the public a clean, transparent vote on the merits.

No direct quote from Hochul defending the provisions on constitutional grounds appeared in the Daily Caller's reporting. The governor's office promoted the measures; it did not, at least publicly, engage with the specific legal objections raised by the NSSF and NRA-ILA.

The lack of engagement is itself telling. When activist groups lobby for legislation in New York, elected officials are typically eager to explain their reasoning. On a measure that bans one of the most popular handgun brands in America, the governor's office offered a press release and moved on.

What remains unanswered

Several basic questions remain open. Which specific Glock models does the ban cover? What is the effective date? What penalties does New York impose on violators? How will the 3D-printer restriction be enforced, and against whom? Has any lawsuit already been filed? None of these answers appeared in the reporting or the governor's public materials.

Those gaps matter. A law that bans a family of pistols used by millions of Americans, and by the state's own police, demands specificity. Voters and gun owners deserve to know exactly what conduct is now criminal and when the clock starts ticking. Lawmakers in other states have faced scrutiny for rushing major policy changes through legislative vehicles designed for speed rather than deliberation. New York's budget maneuver fits the same pattern, with higher constitutional stakes.

The real target

Strip away the rhetoric about Glock switches and 3D-printed ghost guns, and the picture is straightforward. New York's Democratic supermajority used the budget process to ban widely owned, lawfully manufactured firearms and to criminalize a technology that Americans have used for lawful purposes for years. The governor signed the package and took a victory lap. The gun-rights organizations promised to sue. And the taxpayers of New York will pay for the courtroom fight that follows.

When a state has to hide its gun laws inside a budget bill, it tells you everything about how confident its leaders are that those laws can survive public scrutiny, or a judge's review.