New York tucked two sweeping gun restrictions into its Fiscal Year 2027 budget and the governor signed them, creating a ban on Glock pistols and a new limit on 3D printing that critics say sidestepped debate and invites lawsuits.

Lawmakers inserted the measures deep inside a 314-page budget and the package moved through without standalone hearings or a recorded floor vote. That procedural choice kept public scrutiny minimal while producing major changes to who can buy popular handguns and what tools citizens may use to make firearms parts.

The Glock restriction reached headlines because Glock pistols are widely owned by civilians and used by police agencies across the country. The Glock 19X alone sold more than 100,000 units within six months of release, and industry outlets routinely rank Glock among the top-selling brands.

National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman Mark Oliva warned that the ban covers “the same handguns that New York State Police use,” pointing out the contradiction of allowing state troopers to carry weapons that civilians can no longer buy. He says Albany was warned about constitutional problems starting in January when the governor first proposed the idea.

“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 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen put state governments on notice that courts will test gun rules against historical tradition. Despite that warning, New York’s majority tucked a sweeping ban into a must-pass budget instead of debating a standalone bill that could be tested and explained to voters.

The second provision aims at 3D printing used to make firearms or parts and was billed by the governor’s office as a first-of-its-kind restriction. Opponents argue the law will punish ordinary citizens who lawfully make firearms at home while doing little to deter criminals who already ignore existing rules.

“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.”

The NRA-ILA’s executive director called the move “pure political theater” and emphasized that home manufacture of firearms predates the Constitution. Critics also note Albany has not explained how it will enforce the new restriction, who faces penalties, or what those penalties will be.

Supporters of the Glock ban point to illegal conversion devices known as Glock switches that can turn a semi-automatic pistol into a fully automatic weapon. But federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922 already criminalizes possession and manufacture of fully automatic firearms unless registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Possessing a machine-gun conversion device can carry severe penalties, including up to ten years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000, which undercuts the argument that banning entire pistol families is necessary to stop that specific criminal conduct. Critics say banning a whole class of pistols for the actions of a few is a blunt instrument that mostly burdens law-abiding owners.

Legal fights are already on the horizon. The NSSF and NRA-ILA both indicated they will take the state to court, arguing the laws infringe on constitutional rights and that courts will again have to correct what opponents call overreach. New York has faced similar litigation before and lost at the Supreme Court in Bruen.

The budget tactic itself drew criticism for dodging transparency. Instead of public hearings and roll-call votes, these measures rode through as budget “trailer” items, a familiar legislative maneuver some say is being abused to pass controversial policy without clear accountability.

The governor’s office publicly touted the new restrictions after signing the budget but offered no detailed defense addressing the constitutional concerns raised by opponents. That silence has only sharpened skepticism about whether the state considered the legal risks or the costs taxpayers will bear defending the laws in court.

Key practical questions remain unanswered: which Glock models are covered, when the ban takes effect, what penalties apply, who will be targeted by the 3D-printer rule, and how enforcement will work. Those omissions matter because unclear criminal statutes create uncertainty for millions of lawful gun owners and invite immediate legal challenges.

Removing these policies from standard legislative debate sends a message about confidence in their legal durability and public support. By hiding major firearm restrictions inside a budget, officials avoided the kind of open scrutiny and recorded votes that let voters hold them accountable on constitutional issues.