California’s Gun Law Faces Federal Challenge Over “Glock Ban”

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against California on Wednesday, challenging the state’s new law that restricts the sale of handguns capable of being converted into fully automatic weapons. The federal government argues the law violates the Second Amendment and seeks to block its enforcement, marking a significant escalation in the legal battle over gun control measures.

What is California’s new law targeting Glock-style handguns?

California’s Assembly Bill 1127, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October, targets semiautomatic handguns with a specific mechanism that can be converted into fully automatic weapons using “Glock switches.” These devices, which allow a weapon to fire 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger, are not explicitly named in the law but are broadly defined by their functionality. The legislation aims to prevent the sale of such firearms.

The law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies. The state has linked the measure to its broader efforts to reduce gun violence, citing a decline in firearm-related deaths as evidence of the effectiveness of its policies.

How is the Trump administration responding?

The Trump administration’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the law “trample[s]” the rights of law-abiding citizens. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche stated that California cannot ban the “most popular type of handgun in America.” The federal government contends that the law violates the Second Amendment by restricting legal semiautomatic firearms based on their potential for illegal modification.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s handgun roster, a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. The U.S. government compares the state’s approach to banning shotguns because they can be illegally shortened, arguing that such restrictions are overly broad. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit.

Why are “Glock switches” a focal point of the dispute?

“Glock switches” have become a central issue due to their role in recent mass shootings. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of these devices from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023, including in the 2022 Sacramento shooting that killed six people and injured 12. The devices, which can be produced cheaply using 3D printing technology, are considered a public safety threat by state officials.

The state argues this measure addresses a growing risk posed by black-market modifications, while the federal government insists that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters.

What are the legal precedents and implications?

The lawsuit comes amid a broader national debate over gun control, following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions. The Trump administration is using a federal civil rights law typically applied to police departments to argue that California’s enforcement of its gun laws constitutes a constitutional violation.

Rob Bonta, named in the lawsuit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders. Newsom’s spokesperson, Diana Crofts-Pelayo, called the lawsuit “politically motivated” and emphasized that California’s laws have contributed to declining crime rates.

What happens next in the legal battle?

The federal government is seeking a court order to block the law’s enforcement while the case proceeds. A judge’s decision could set a precedent for how states regulate firearms with potential for conversion. The outcome may also influence similar legislation in other states, as gun control advocates and rights groups closely monitor the case.

The legal fight underscores the deepening divide between state and federal approaches to gun regulation. As the case moves forward, it will test the limits of state authority under the Second Amendment and the feasibility of balancing public safety with constitutional rights.