DOJ sues California over Glock ban, says law violates 2nd Amendment

The lawsuit also challenges California's longstanding Handgun Roster, which limits the handgun models licensed dealers may sell in the state. The DOJ contends both laws unlawfully infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The challenged law, Assembly Bill 1127, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2025 and took effect on July 1, the same day the Justice Department filed suit. Critics have dubbed the law the "Glock ban" because it bars dealers from selling semiautomatic pistols that can be readily converted into fully automatic firearms using illegal conversion devices commonly known as "Glock switches." Existing owners may keep their firearms, but licensed dealers are prohibited from selling new pistols covered by the law.

"The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "We will work to stop this blatant trampling of our rights by the California government to protect the rights of lawful gun owners."

According to the Justice Department, Glock pistols and firearms using similar firing mechanisms are among the most commonly owned handguns in the United States and are widely used by civilians for lawful self-defense.

In its complaint, the DOJ argues California cannot prohibit "perfectly legal and safe firearms" simply because criminals may illegally modify them. The lawsuit compares the state's reasoning to banning all shotguns because they could be unlawfully shortened into prohibited sawed-off shotguns using common tools.

The lawsuit also seeks to invalidate California's Handgun Roster, the state's list of approved handgun models that may be sold by licensed firearm dealers. Gun rights advocates have long argued the roster functions as a de facto ban on many modern handguns by requiring manufacturers to comply with technical standards that many have declined or been unable to meet.

Supporters of AB 1127, including its author, Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, argued the legislation was necessary to combat the growing use of illegal conversion devices that can transform semiautomatic pistols into fully automatic ones. Those conversion devices, commonly referred to as Glock switches, are already prohibited under federal law, but lawmakers argued the ease with which they can be obtained or manufactured using 3D printers justified additional state restrictions on firearms capable of accepting them.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said the lawsuit reflects the department's commitment to defending the constitutional rights of gun owners. "The Civil Rights Division will defend law-abiding citizens from states that seek to disarm them illegally," Dhillon said. "This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms."

The Justice Department points to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, in which the Court reaffirmed that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense and reiterated that states may not prohibit firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the state intends to defend the law, arguing its firearm regulations are constitutional and are designed to protect public safety by limiting access to weapons that can be converted into machine guns.

The lawsuit marks the latest effort by the Trump administration to challenge state firearm restrictions through the Justice Department's newly established Second Amendment Section. In recent months, the department has filed or supported legal challenges involving firearm regulations in Colorado, Washington, DC, Los Angeles County, Philadelphia, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, signaling an aggressive strategy of using the Civil Rights Division to contest state and local gun laws that the administration believes conflict with Supreme Court precedent.

The challenge also comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear another major Second Amendment case addressing bans on semiautomatic rifles, setting the stage for another potentially significant ruling on the scope of constitutional protections for commonly owned firearms.