Justice Department Sues California Over Glock Ban, Handgun Roster

The Justice Department sued California on July 1 over its ban on "machinegun convertible pistols" and its "handgun roster," according to a DOJ press release reported by The Epoch Times' Michael Clements and carried by ZeroHedge.

The challenged law bans the purchase of Glock pistols and guns with similar firing mechanisms, according to the DOJ press release, while the handgun roster limits the handguns California citizens can legally buy. The department claims both are unconstitutional.

The Glock measure traces to Assembly Bill 1127, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October 2025 to prohibit licensed firearms dealers from selling the covered pistols, per the report. The state's formal response to the lawsuit is not carried in the material supplied, and the DOJ's claims are allegations in a civil complaint that California will have the opportunity to contest in court.

Background

California maintains the most extensive firearms regulation of any US state, and its handgun roster — a list of models certified for retail sale under the Unsafe Handgun Act, in force since 2001 — has been a target of Second Amendment litigation for years; gun-rights groups argue its testing and feature requirements exclude most modern pistols from the California market. The newer front is the so-called Glock ban: legislation aimed at pistols whose design can be converted to fully automatic fire with a cheap illegal device known as a switch or auto sear, which law enforcement agencies nationwide have blamed for a surge in machine-gun fire in American cities.

The suit also marks a role reversal with constitutional stakes: the federal Justice Department suing a state to strike down gun restrictions. The legal terrain was reshaped by the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun laws to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation and has fueled challenges to state statutes across the country.

What comes next

California's response — from the governor's office and the state attorney general, who defends state statutes — is the immediate step to watch, followed by the litigation calendar in federal court: any motion for preliminary relief against AB 1127 or the roster, the state's motion practice in response, and the near-certainty of appeal whichever way the district court rules. None of those steps is yet recorded in the material supplied.