The head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has put California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta on notice: if the state tries to enforce its upcoming ban on Glocks and other other striker-fired pistols with cruciform trigger bars, it will be the next jurisdiction that faces federal litigation.
Tick tock! On July 1, CA plans to impose an unconstitutional “Glock Ban.”
Today, I notified @CAGovernor & @AGRobBonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned! pic.twitter.com/xhGmRt4VPz— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 24, 2026
California isn’t the only state where anti-gun Democrats are taking aim at some of the most popular pistols around, but it is the first state that will enforce a ban on the sale of Glocks and other firearms with similar designs, which can be illegally modified into full-auto machine guns through the installation of a small switch that is already illegal to possess under both California and federal law.
Dihllon’s letter says she’s not only authorized a legal challenge to the Glock ban, but to California’s “handgun roster,” which requires gunmakers to submit their firearms to the California Department of Justice for approval for sale in the state.
A federal judge granted an injunction in a separate legal challenge to the handgun roster, but that decision was stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and for now the roster remains in effect and thwarts the ability of Californians to easily acquire firearms that are widely available in most of the country.
Dhillon says the state can avoid litigation if it chooses to not enforce the challenged statutes, acknowledges their unconstitutional nature, and enters into a consent decree that would prohibit enforcement going forward. I’d say the odds of that offer being accepted are slightly lower than the odds of me winning Powerball without buying a ticket.
I could be wrong, though. The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation filed suit over the same ban in October of last year, but in March, 2026 the plaintiffs and defendants both requested a stay in the proceedings in Jaymes v Bonta because the “parties are currently in discussions that could lead to the resolution of this case,” adding “to allow those discussions to go forward and to preserve both the Court’s resources and those of the Parties, the Parties respectfully request the current schedule be vacated.”
The parties then submitted a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit in early April. In a statement at the time, SAF said the decision to abandon the case was made with the best interest of California gun owners in mind, and that they needed to wait for the Ninth Circuit to issue its decisions in the Renna and Boland cases first. Those cases are challenges to California’s handgun roster, and could ultimately have an impact on any litigation involving the Glock ban too.
It’s now been almost 1,100 days since oral arguments in the two cases took place before the Ninth Circuit, and we’re still waiting for a ruling. We’ve also seen nothing from Attorney General Rob Bonta since Jaymes was dismissed to indicate that California won’t be implementing and enforcing the Glock ban starting on July 1.
I’d be thrilled if California backed off its enforcement or implementation of the Glock ban, but I’m glad to see that Dhillon and the DOJ are ready to take action if the ban takes effect next week, which seems likely to happen.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
