California doesn’t just regulate guns anymore.
Now the state is in federal court over pepper.
A new lawsuit filed by less-lethal weapons maker Byrna Technologies argues that California’s ban on “pepper projectile launchers” is flatly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
California Globe columnist Katy Grimes and Four Boxes Diner host and constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith both say this case could become a major test of how far states can go in banning non-lethal self-defense tools.
Lawsuit Targets California’s Less-Lethal Ban
Katy Grimes reports in the California Globe that Byrna founder Bryan Ganz says California has effectively blocked sales of both Byrna launchers and their ammunition in the state.
These launchers look like handguns, but instead of firing bullets, they shoot pepper-gel or chemical irritant projectiles designed to quickly incapacitate an attacker.
According to Grimes, Byrna’s products are legal in all 50 states, yet California and New York are the only states that prohibit residents from owning these launchers.
Ganz told Grimes he assumed a less-lethal weapon would be embraced by California politicians and law enforcement as a safer alternative to guns.
Instead, he says the Newsom administration has shut his products out of the state.
That’s what led Byrna, along with individual plaintiffs, to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, asking a federal judge to strike down what they call the “Pepper Projectile Launcher Bans.”
How California Ended Up Banning Pepper Launchers
Grimes traces the roots of the current ban to Assembly Bill 48, authored in 2021 by then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez.
AB 48 was pitched as a response to police tactics during the George Floyd protests, where officers used rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, foam rounds, and chemical agents for crowd control.
Grimes notes that Gonzalez claimed her bill was about stopping “unwarranted force” against protesters and journalists.
The Legislature officially framed AB 48 as a restriction on law enforcement use of kinetic projectiles and chemical agents against assemblies and demonstrations.
But in practice, Grimes reports, the language bled far beyond riot control.
In 2025, the California Department of Justice updated the rules around so-called “tear gas weapons.”
The updated law now says no person may purchase, possess, or use any tear gas weapon that expels a projectile or uses any method other than aerosol spray, and it caps legal spray cans at 2.5 ounces.
Grimes points out the irony: Californians can carry small cans of traditional pepper spray, but they cannot legally possess a non-lethal launcher that fires irritant projectiles, even if it’s specifically designed to avoid permanent injury.
Byrna’s lawsuit, as quoted by Grimes, argues that this is more than regulatory overreach – it’s a direct Second Amendment violation.
What Byrna’s Lawsuit Argues
Both Grimes and Mark Smith highlight the same core legal claim.
The lawsuit states that pepper projectile launchers are “arms” under the Second Amendment because they are bearable weapons used for self-defense.
Grimes notes that the complaint leans on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, where a unanimous Court held that modern stun guns are protected “arms,” even though they didn’t exist at the time of the Founding.
Byrna’s lawyers argue that their launchers fall into the same category: modern, non-lethal defensive tools that ordinary people can carry.
The lawsuit, as described by Grimes, emphasizes that these launchers are powered by CO₂ cartridges or compressed gas, contain no gunpowder or explosive mechanisms, and are mechanically similar to paintball or airsoft markers.
For civilians, the most popular Byrna model holds just five projectiles and requires a separate trigger pull for each shot.
According to language quoted by Grimes, the projectiles rupture on impact, release an irritant powder, and incapacitate an aggressor for about 30 minutes before the effects wear off.
Byrna calls these launchers a crucial option for law-abiding citizens who don’t want to carry a firearm but still need a way to stop a threat at up to 60 feet.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare California’s ban “patently unconstitutional” and to block its enforcement.
Mark Smith Says Case Could Set Big Second Amendment Precedent
On his Four Boxes Diner channel, attorney Mark W. Smith calls the Byrna lawsuit “major breaking news” and “an excellent complaint” filed in the Southern District of California.
Smith describes Byrna Technologies as a publicly traded company that specializes in non-lethal arms, including the pepper projectile launchers and their specific ammunition.
He says this case could become “a huge vehicle” for building favorable Second Amendment precedent, especially on two issues:
the right to acquire arms and the protection of non-lethal defensive tools.
Smith quotes the same introductory language from the complaint that Grimes highlights, emphasizing the claim that California “criminalizes the act of selling or possessing” these launchers even though they are commonly used and non-lethal.
He also points out that the complaint relies on the Supreme Court’s “dangerous and unusual” test.
Under cases like Heller and later decisions, bans on specific weapons can only be justified if those arms are both dangerous and unusual.
Smith stresses that all weapons are inherently “dangerous” in a basic sense, so the historical test is really about unreasonably dangerous or outlier weapons, and about whether they’re rare or unusual in civilian hands.
In his view, it will be almost impossible for California to prove that Byrna’s launchers are “dangerous and unusual” when they’re marketed nationwide, sold through mainstream retailers, and used by both civilians and security professionals.
Outlier Laws And The “Pepper Spray Ban”
Smith spends a lot of time on what he calls “outlier laws.”
He explains that the Supreme Court tends to look skeptically at regulations that exist in only one or two states while the rest of the country takes a different approach.
In this case, Smith notes, Byrna’s complaint points out that pepper projectile launchers are legal in 48 states.
Grimes reports the same thing: only California and New York criminalize these non-lethal launchers for ordinary citizens.
Smith reads from the complaint, which lists common retailers like Bass Pro Shops, Sportsman’s Warehouse, and Amazon, and notes that many law enforcement agencies – including the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – use similar pepper projectile systems as less-lethal tools.
That creates a strange contrast.
As both Grimes and Smith describe it, law enforcement and private security can use these launchers as safer alternatives to firearms, but ordinary Californians are flatly prohibited from owning them at all.
Smith argues that this is exactly the kind of outlier, inconsistent policy the Supreme Court doesn’t like.
He says that when the government regulates “arms-bearing conduct,” quoting from the complaint’s reliance on recent Supreme Court language, the burden is on the government to justify the law by pointing to a historic tradition of similar regulation.
Here, he believes California won’t be able to find anything close.
Why Non-Lethal Arms Matter For Self-Defense
Both Grimes and Smith highlight a key theme: non-lethal arms are often the “middle ground” for people who don’t want or can’t own guns.
Grimes quotes from the lawsuit’s explanation that many people – including those on the political left, or those uncomfortable with firearms – are drawn to Byrna’s launchers because they offer a way to stop a threat without killing.
Ganz told Grimes that two-thirds of Byrna’s customers are already gun owners, but many others are people who simply want a tool to de-escalate a dangerous situation without resorting to lethal force.
Smith goes even further, calling Byrna-type launchers a “gateway weapon” in the sense that they let people, especially young women or those nervous about guns, defend themselves against “predators, creeps, gangsters, cartel members, and other nut jobs,” as he bluntly puts it.
He argues that if the Second Amendment protects lethal firearms, it should be even harder for a state to ban a less-lethal option that ordinary people can carry and use for self-defense.
From a common-sense perspective, that point lands hard.
If you believe people have a right to defend themselves, banning the tool that is designed specifically not to kill – while still allowing traditional firearms – feels backward.
Grimes echoes this in her framing, noting that Byrna’s entire business model is built around giving civilians and security professionals a way to protect homes, businesses, and vehicles without resorting to lethal force.
What Happens Next In The Court Fight
Right now, the Byrna case is at the early stage.
Grimes reports that the lawsuit was filed “last week” in federal court, and Smith says it is now pending in the Southern District of California, with Byrna Technologies and individual would-be owners listed as plaintiffs.
From here, California’s attorneys will almost certainly try to defend the ban using public safety arguments and technical definitions under the penal code.
But Smith believes they face an uphill battle.
He says the pepper projectile ban implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because it restricts “bearable arms,” and that shifts the burden to the state to show some historical tradition that justifies this modern restriction.
Combined with the outlier status – 48 states say yes, two states say no – Smith thinks this is “an excellent vehicle” for a strong Second Amendment ruling.
If Byrna and its customers win, the case could do more than just reopen the California market for these launchers.
It could lock in a broader principle: that non-lethal defensive tools are fully protected arms, and that states cannot simply ban them because they dislike anything that looks like a gun.
In a state that often claims to favor “de-escalation” and “less-lethal” policing, that would be a hard rule to argue against.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
