California – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association (NRA), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have joined forces to challenge California’s latest gun control law, Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans the commercial sale of all Glock and Glock-platform handguns in the state.
The lawsuit, Jaymes v. Bonta, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California just days after Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law. The groups argue that AB 1127 violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by outlawing one of the most popular and commonly owned handgun platforms in America.
What the Law Does
AB 1127 prohibits the sale of “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machine gun by installing a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s backplate.”
That language specifically targets Glock-style handguns, which use the cruciform trigger bar design found in millions of legally owned pistols nationwide. The ban takes effect July 1, 2026.
Violations could lead to fines and loss of a dealer’s license.
Gun Rights Groups Respond
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said California is doubling down on unconstitutional restrictions rather than following Supreme Court precedent.
“Lawmakers in the state obviously don’t understand that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Gottlieb said. “We look forward to defeating this law in court and restoring the rights of California citizens.”
Bill Sack, SAF’s Director of Legal Operations, added that California’s handgun roster is already under injunction for banning common handguns and that AB 1127 expands the ban even further.
“Rather than heed the demands of the Second Amendment and their own courts, California lawmakers have responded by doubling down,” Sack said. “We’ll see them in court.”
The NRA echoed that message. John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, called the ban “an outrageous attempt to suppress the constitutional rights of California gun owners.”
“Our message to Governor Newsom is simple: we will see you in court,” Commerford said. “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.”
Who’s Suing
The plaintiffs include:
- Danielle Jaymes, a California resident and legal gun owner who intends to buy a Glock after the law’s effective date;
- PWG Range, a licensed firearms retailer in Poway, California;
- John Phillips, PWG’s president, and the three national organizations SAF, NRA, and FPC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Benbrook Law Group and Cooper & Kirk, the same legal teams that have brought multiple successful Second Amendment cases across the country.
The Legal Argument
According to the filed complaint, the Glock ban violates Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), both of which affirmed that arms “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be banned.
The filing notes that Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the world. In 2021 alone, Glock manufactured more than half a million pistols for sale in the U.S., and three Glock models ranked among the top-25 best-selling new guns of 2024.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
Glock 26 Gen5 Mos 9mm Luger Semi-Aut Handgun - Glock 26 Gen 5 Mos 9mm Luger 3.43'''' Bbl (3)10rd Mags Black | Brownells.com | $ 620.00 |
|
|
|
Glock G19 Gen5 9mm Pistol, Black - PA195S203 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 649.99 $ 549.99 |
|
|
19 Gen 5 Custom 9mm Luger We Want You Gray Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen5 9mm 4.02'''' Bbl (3)15rd We Want You Gray | Brownells.com | $ 766.99 |
|
|
|
Glock 19 Gen5 9mm Pistol 4.02" 15rd ,Black, Ameriglo Ultimate Carry Sights -Green Tritium Front Sight with Lumigreen Outline- PA195S303UC | Palmetto State Armory | $ 699.99 $ 569.99 |
|
Looking Ahead
AB 1127 is set to take effect in mid-2026 unless the court intervenes. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to block enforcement of the law and a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional.
Backgrounder: How California Ended Up Banning Glocks
The Law — AB 1127
Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2025, Assembly Bill 1127 adds Section 27595 to the California Penal Code, banning the commercial sale of any “semiautomatic machine-gun convertible pistol.” The definition hinges on a “cruciform trigger bar,” a mechanical part found in nearly all Glock-brand and Glock-pattern pistols.
The stated purpose is to prevent firearms from being converted into machine guns using small aftermarket devices known as “pistol converters” or “auto sears.” But possession of such devices is already illegal under both federal and state law, and gun-rights advocates argue that banning the base firearm itself is an extreme overreach.
California’s Handgun Roster and Previous Challenges
California’s Handgun Roster already limits which pistols may be sold in the state, excluding most new models made after 2013. Courts have ruled portions of the roster unconstitutional — notably in Renna v. Bonta (2023), where the Southern District of California found the roster likely violated the Second Amendment by banning handguns “in common use.”
Rather than loosen restrictions, lawmakers doubled down with AB 1127, effectively banning even the few Glock Gen 3 models that remained on the roster.
Why GLOCKS Matter
The Glock handgun, first imported to the U.S. in the 1980s, revolutionized the firearms market with its lightweight polymer frame and reliability. Glocks are used by police departments, the U.S. military, and millions of civilians. They’re often referred to as the “Toyota Camry of handguns” — simple, dependable, and everywhere.
Eliminating them from the California market would remove one of the most widely used self-defense firearms in the country.
The Lawsuit’s Broader Implications
The Jaymes v. Bonta case could become a major test of how far states can go in restricting entire firearm platforms under the post-Bruen framework.
If successful, the plaintiffs could not only overturn AB 1127 but also set a precedent limiting future attempts to ban firearms based on design characteristics rather than misuse.
California’s new Glock ban has united America’s leading gun-rights organizations — SAF, NRA, and FPC — in a single coordinated legal challenge. They argue the law is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and a direct assault on the right of ordinary citizens to buy the most common handgun in America.
The battle lines are drawn, and once again, the future of the Second Amendment will be decided in a California courtroom.
In a roundabout way, isn’t California the main cause of these autosears? After restricting sales of Glocks newer than Gen 3’s and basically forcing Glock to make older Gen 3’s for the California market instead of the harder to convert gen 4’s and 5’s (so l have been told) would have been a non issue when Glock would have phased out production of the generation 3’s?
CA Glock retailers, this may be the time to consider stocking up on hi-perf triggers that don’t have a cruciform. Just sayin.
This one is so clearly illegal that I hold hopes that even the 9th Circuit would vote to overturn when the inevitable appeal of the injunction request reaches their chambers. The Supreme Court noted in a recent case that even the Biden DOJ did not try to argue that one could ban the AR because it “could be readily converted to a machine gun”. Yet that’s exactly what California is trying here.
“Gun registry” of Kaliforication? How about the GUN REGISTRY that the “SO-CALLED representatives” in the State of Maryland ENFORCES against the American People who happen to live in Maryland?
The Demoncrats of Maryland have used the Anti-Constitutional actions enacted in GUN CONTROLLING STATES as a MIRROR in Maryland! This is in itself an INFRINGEMENT on the RIGHTS of Legal Law Abiding American Citizens!
Question: When will these “politicians”, “bureaucrats” or “judges” who bring these ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL, INFRINGEMENT “bills” forward, be ARRESTED, CHARGED, PROSECUTED and PUNISHED for HARRASSING Second Amendment supporting American Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!
Where are the LAWS that DEFEND the Constituionally ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of the American People?
Glock’s not pro 2A either…
https://2awhiterook.com/glock-regularly-looks-at-4473s/