- David Schwartz compares SEC compliance concerns with Glock’s Connecticut suit.
- Glock seeks clarity on whether redesigned pistols fall under Connecticut’s ban.
- Glock challenges the law’s clarity and raises two separate Second Amendment claims.
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz compared the company’s SEC lawsuit to Glock’s challenge to Connecticut firearm restrictions, highlighting a dispute over whether businesses can determine how to comply with the law.
His comments followed attorney Kostas Moros’s account of Glock’s efforts to obtain clarification about whether its redesigned pistols fall under a state ban.
Schwartz Questions Clarity of Compliance Rules
Schwartz responded to information shared by Moros, who described Glock’s attempts to secure an answer from Connecticut’s attorney general before the restrictions take effect on October 1.
“It’s grossly unfair when the government’s clear intentional strategy is to ensure either that you cannot possibly comply with the law or that you cannot possibly know whether you are complying with the law,” Schwartz wrote on X.
He added, “Ask me how I know,” signaling a connection to Ripple’s experience with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. When another user asked about that experience, Schwartz linked to Investopedia’s analysis of the SEC v. Ripple case.
Glock Seeks Court Ruling Before October Deadline
According to Moros, Glock redesigned its V series and Gen 6 pistols to block illegal conversion devices, commonly called switches, or make them harder to install.
The manufacturer then asked Connecticut’s attorney general to confirm whether the updated models comply with state law. Moros said the office declined to provide that confirmation, leaving the company without the clarification it sought before the enforcement deadline.
Glock consequently seeks a court declaration that its redesigned and slimline models do not qualify as prohibited “convertible pistols.” Its lawsuit also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague and raises two Second Amendment claims.
One concerns the redesigned, slimline models, while the other applies to all Glock pistols. Moros noted that the court could resolve the dispute through an earlier claim without addressing the broadest constitutional argument.
Ripple Connection Centers on Regulatory Notice
Schwartz’s comparison returns attention to a central issue in Ripple’s dispute with the SEC: whether the company had adequate notice of the standards governing its conduct. The SEC alleged that Ripple raised more than $1.3 billion through unregistered XRP securities offerings.
Ripple argued that regulators failed to provide clear guidance on applicable digital asset standards. Schwartz connected that compliance concern to Glock’s request for clarity before Connecticut begins enforcing its restrictions.
Related: Ripple’s David Schwartz Pushes Back Against Memecoin Investment Culture
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
