Glock Ban Sparks NRA Lawsuit Against California
On Oct. 10, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1127, a measure that bars Glock pistols and firearms built on the Glock platform from retail sales in California. The law targets a category of semi-automatic handguns and is framed as a way to prevent conversion into fully automatic weapons. That justification runs into an immediate legal and practical objection: federal and state statutes already prohibit conversion devices and automatic fire.
San Diego County resident Danielle Jaymes filed suit in the Southern District of California against Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing the statute violates constitutional protections. Jaymes holds a state firearm certificate and is a lawful owner, which is central to the challenge. Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range, a local dealer and training facility, joined the litigation.
The National Rifle Association has announced it has filed a federal challenge to AB 1127, and the organization framed the action in stark terms. “Our message to Governor Newsom is simple: we will see you in court,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights. Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America. This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”
The case is styled Jaymes v. Bonta, and the plaintiffs ground their claims in Supreme Court precedent. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court made clear that the government cannot ban arms that are in common use, including handguns. The lawsuit asks a federal court to declare AB 1127 unconstitutional under that settled standard.
AB 1127 forbids firearms dealers from selling certain semi-automatic pistols, a prohibition that would sharply limit the availability of popular handgun models to lawful buyers. Supporters of the bill cite public safety and the prevention of weapon conversion, but opponents point out that the conversion of a semi-automatic into a machine gun is already a federal crime. Critics also see the ban as part of a broader political effort to shrink the scope of the Second Amendment.
Local retailers and owners say the law will punish lawful behavior and commerce while doing little to deter criminals who obtain weapons illegally. The litigation argues the statute sweeps too broadly by banning whole classes of pistols rather than addressing illicit modification tools or illicit traffickers. Courts will examine whether the ban targets “common” arms and whether it survives constitutional scrutiny.
Documents filed with the court are part of the public record and have circulated among advocacy groups and the press. NRA filing 10.13.25 by scott.mcclallen
The lawsuit asks the court not only to block enforcement but to enjoin the state from applying the ban while constitutional questions remain unresolved. If a federal judge grants relief, California dealers would be able to continue sales of affected models pending final disposition. If the court upholds AB 1127, the ruling could reshape handgun markets and ownership rules within the state.
State-by-state rules on what people can carry and own already vary dramatically, and California sits among the most restrictive on many measures. Illinois requires a Firearm Owners Identification card to possess firearms or ammunition, while California lacks a broad stand-your-ground exception and can criminally charge homeowners who use deadly force under certain circumstances. Those regulatory regimes have not eliminated violent crime in places like Chicago, a point critics of strict bans often cite.
Nationally, groups continue to push multiple legal challenges over gun rules, including recent work by the Second Amendment Foundation against provisions of the National Firearms Act. That suit targets requirements for registering short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors with the federal government. These overlapping cases show the legal fight over firearms policy remains active on many fronts.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
