DOJ Sues California Over Glock Ban And Handgun Roster

The Trump Justice Department has sued California to stop the state’s new “Glock ban” and major parts of its restrictive Handgun Roster, arguing that California is violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The lawsuit, United States v. California and Robert Bonta, was filed July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It names the State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity as head of the California Department of Justice.

This is not just another private gun-rights lawsuit. This is the United States government suing California and saying, in plain terms, that enforcing these handgun restrictions amounts to a civil-rights violation.

At issue are two California schemes: Penal Code section 27595, commonly called the “Glock ban,” and the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which controls what handguns may be sold through California’s Handgun Roster.

DOJ Targets California’s Glock Ban

California’s Glock ban took effect July 1. The law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what the state calls “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistols.”

The statute does not use the word “Glock,” but DOJ says the target is obvious.

According to the complaint, the law is “commonly known as the ‘Glock Ban,’ because it bans the sale of virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols.” DOJ says the restriction reaches not only Glock-branded pistols but also popular Glock-pattern handguns such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems models.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Aimpoint COA Optic - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 885.20
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - AmeriGlo Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 592.30
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - GLOCK Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 565.68
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Fixed Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 513.65

California claims these pistols are dangerous because criminals can illegally install conversion devices, often called Glock switches, that turn some semiautomatic pistols into machine guns. DOJ’s answer is simple: conversion devices are already illegal. California cannot ban ordinary, lawful handguns because a criminal might illegally modify one.

The complaint uses a comparison every gun owner understands. A legal shotgun can be turned into an illegal short-barreled shotgun with a hacksaw, but that does not give the state power to ban shotguns. A semiautomatic rifle can be illegally converted into a machine gun, but that does not make ordinary semiautomatic rifles illegal.

In DOJ’s words, “California’s ban on the sale of the most popular handgun in America obviously violates the Second Amendment.”

Handgun Roster Also Challenged

The lawsuit goes beyond the Glock ban. DOJ also attacks California’s Handgun Roster requirements, including the chamber-load indicator, magazine-disconnect mechanism, and microstamping rules that have blocked many modern handguns from the California market.

DOJ leans heavily on Boland v. Bonta, where a federal judge previously said Californians have a constitutional right to acquire and use “state-of-the-art handguns” for self-defense and should not be forced to settle for decade-old models.

That is the heart of the roster problem. California does not merely regulate handguns. It decides which handguns ordinary citizens may buy, while carving out exceptions for law enforcement and other favored groups.

The complaint argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire arms, not just possess whatever old models the state leaves on the shelf. A right to keep and bear arms means little if California can choke off the sale of modern, commonly used defensive pistols.

Civil Rights Law Enters The Fight

The most important part of the lawsuit may be the legal vehicle DOJ is using.

The United States brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a federal civil-rights statute usually associated with “pattern or practice” misconduct by government agencies and law enforcement officers.

DOJ’s theory is direct. California DOJ Bureau of Firearms agents and other state law-enforcement officers enforce the state’s firearms laws. If those laws violate the Second Amendment, then their enforcement creates a pattern or practice of depriving citizens of constitutional rights.

Gun rights are civil rights. When a state criminalizes access to commonly owned arms, it is not merely making “gun policy.” It is violating rights protected by the Constitution.

Bonta Refused DOJ’s Demand

The filing came after Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon warned California on June 24 that DOJ was prepared to sue if the state refused to stop enforcing the challenged laws.

On June 30, Bonta rejected that demand. In a response letter, he said the California Department of Justice “will not agree” to cease enforcement, acknowledge the laws are unconstitutional, or enter a consent decree.

Not that I ever expect good faith from Rob Bonta and my clownshow state of California, but there is so much bullshit in this response I have to do a short thread on it breaking it down. https://t.co/Nxtnkt536L

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 30, 2026

Bonta defended the Unsafe Handgun Act and Penal Code section 27595 as “commonsense handgun design safety laws.” He also pointed to pending Ninth Circuit roster cases, including Boland v. Bonta and Renna v. Bonta, and claimed hundreds of handgun models remain available for sale in California.

But the Constitution is not satisfied by a government-approved menu. The question is not whether California allows some handguns. The question is whether it can ban the commercial sale of common modern handguns while pretending the Second Amendment remains intact.

DOJ says it cannot.

The lawsuit asks the court for declaratory judgment and a permanent statewide injunction blocking enforcement of the Glock ban and the challenged roster provisions. For California gun owners, this could become one of the most important handgun cases in the country.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.