The Department of Justice warned California on Wednesday that it would file a lawsuit against state officials if they do not scrap plans to enforce a "Glock ban," which the federal government argues violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
In a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said California residents "have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves."
The warning comes as California's Assembly Bill 1127, known as the "Glock ban," is set to take effect on July 1. The law was signed by Newsom last fall.
The legislation prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling or transferring any "machinegun-convertible pistol." State officials argue Glocks qualify because their trigger mechanisms can be quickly modified with illegal aftermarket conversion devices.
Existing owners may keep their firearms, while sales to law enforcement agencies and the military are exempt from the restrictions.
What the Right Is Saying
Second Amendment advocates and conservative groups have praised the DOJ's intervention. The NRA filed its own lawsuit against California over the same law, calling it an unconstitutional burden on lawful gun owners.
Dhillon wrote that residents "should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home."
In her letter, Dhillon outlined three minimum requirements for any resolution: immediate cessation of enforcement, acknowledgment of the law's unconstitutionality, and agreement to a court-enforceable consent decree preventing similar laws in the future.
Second Amendment defenders argue the California law amounts to a backdoor ban on popular firearms by using technical definitions rather than outright prohibition. They note that Glocks are among the most widely owned handguns in America.
What the Left Is Saying
Gun control advocates have defended California's approach as a reasonable public safety measure. Supporters of AB 1127 argue that restricting weapons capable of being converted to fully automatic fire addresses a genuine safety concern.
California lawmakers who backed the bill contend that the law targets conversion devices rather than the pistols themselves, and that exemptions for current owners and law enforcement strike a balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights.
Proponents point to statistics showing that rapid-fire weapons pose heightened risks in criminal contexts, arguing that states have an interest in preventing such conversions before they occur.
Newsom's office has not yet issued a formal response to the DOJ letter, though the governor has previously defended California's firearms regulations as among the strongest in the nation.
What the Numbers Show
AB 1127 is scheduled to take effect July 1, leaving California officials with a narrow window to respond to the DOJ's demands. The deadline for agreeing to pre-suit negotiations was set for 5 p.m. Tuesday.
California has enacted more than 100 firearms-related laws since 2010, according to the state attorney general's office. The state consistently ranks among the lowest in the nation for gun death rates per capita.
Glock pistols have been in production since 1982 and are used by numerous law enforcement agencies nationwide. The company produces multiple models that would fall under California's definition of "machinegun-convertible."
The DOJ has not specified a timeline for filing suit if California declines to negotiate, though Dhillon stated she had approved the complaint for filing in federal district court.
The Bottom Line
This confrontation marks another clash between state-level gun control efforts and federal Second Amendment protections. If litigation proceeds, courts will need to determine whether California's technical definition of "machinegun-convertible" constitutes a permissible regulation or an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms.
California could choose to negotiate, defend the law in court, or amend AB 1127 before the July 1 effective date. The outcome could set precedent for similar laws in other states considering restrictions based on conversion potential rather than inherent weapon capabilities.