‘Unconstitutional’: Gun Owners Fight Back Against California’s Glock Ban

Just days after California’s governor signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced a new federal lawsuit to stop what many are calling a “Glock ban.” In its October 13, 2025 press release, NRA-ILA confirmed that the NRA has teamed up with Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Poway Weapons & Gear, and two individual NRA members to file Jaymes v. Bonta in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Their aim: block Penal Code §27595(a) before it takes effect in 2026 and, ultimately, strike it down as unconstitutional.

What AB 1127 Actually Bans

According to NRA-ILA, the new law bars licensed dealers from selling, giving, or transferring “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistols,” which California defines as semi-auto pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily converted” to a machine gun using a backplate “pistol converter,” with no changes to the trigger mechanism. The statute excludes hammer-fired pistols and striker-fired pistols that don’t use a cruciform trigger bar – functionally targeting Glock-manufactured handguns and Glock-pattern clones. In NRA-ILA’s words, this is a ban on many of the most popular handguns in America – and thus a direct collision with Supreme Court precedent on “common use.”

Timing Matters: When The Screws Tighten

Attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law breaks the rollout into two dates: January 1, 2026, when FFLs may no longer accumulate newly prohibited inventory, and July 1, 2026, when sales and transfers of covered pistols must stop. Kirk stresses that, as a practical matter, inventory is already moving in a hurry – California buyers are acting before the window closes. Whether you call that a run on the counter or a rational response to uncertainty, Kirk’s calendar view is crucial for dealers and customers alike.

The Lawsuit’s Core Argument: Heller And Bruen Control

All four sources converge on the same constitutional backbone. As NRA-ILA summarizes, District of Columbia v. Heller protects handguns specifically as the “quintessential” self-defense arm, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen requires the state to justify modern restrictions with demonstrable roots in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 

Kirk notes the complaint emphasizes that Glock-style handguns are plainly in common use, defeating any attempt to call them “dangerous and unusual.” In other words: if millions of lawful Americans already own and use these handguns, California can’t ban their acquisition without running afoul of the Second Amendment. 

What The Plaintiffs Want From The Court

Kirk and William of Copper Jacket TV walk through the requested relief. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare §27595(a) unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied, and to enjoin enforcement (i.e., stop the state from applying the law). They also seek fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and any other appropriate relief. If the court grants a preliminary injunction before July 1, 2026, California’s deadline to halt sales would be frozen while the merits are litigated.

Why Single Out Glocks? The “Switch” That’s Already Illegal

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets underscores the oddity at the heart of AB 1127: instead of targeting the illegal conversion device (think “Glock switch” or auto sear), California is banning the guns that could accept such a device. Those devices are already unlawful under federal and state law. So rather than punish criminal conduct, the statute removes a ubiquitous class of lawful handguns from the marketplace, simply because a criminal somewhere might misuse an illegal part. As policy, that’s backwards; as law, that’s vulnerable – especially when the banned items are the most common handguns in the country.

The “Common Use” Evidence: Not Exactly A Close Call

William (Copper Jacket TV) points to production and sales figures to make the obvious explicit: Glocks are everywhere – on duty belts, in nightstands, in training classes, and in concealed-carry holsters. NRA-ILA frames it similarly: California’s ban is a direct strike at “many of the most popular handguns in America.” If Heller protects handguns in common use and Bruen bars modern outliers without historical analogues, it’s hard to see how the state meets its burden here. If you’re trying to survive the Bruen test, basing a ban on internal parts geometry is a weak reed; “cruciform trigger bar” isn’t a historical category of prohibited arms.

Retail Realities: Dealers And Ranges Are Plaintiffs For A Reason

The inclusion of Poway Weapons & Gear signals the real-world economic bite. As Jared notes, violations could mean fines or the loss of an FFL – existential threats for a business that has lawfully sold these pistols for decades. Kirk adds that the staged effective dates are already shaping behavior: FFLs can’t risk being stuck with stranded inventory on July 1, and consumers are compressing years of planned purchases into months or weeks. Regardless of one’s politics, that’s a policy shock, not a safety tweak. 

The Broader 2A Landscape – And A Rare United Front

William at Copper Jacket TV highlights how quickly this case landed – filed three days after the bill was signed – and notes the unusual alignment: SAF, FPC, and the NRA standing shoulder-to-shoulder. He also flags a practical deadline: to keep the July 1 cutoff from biting, the court needs to consider preliminary relief on an accelerated track. This joint filing isn’t just symbolism; it signals confidence that this is a clean vehicle under Heller/Bruen, with facts (handguns, common use) that courts already understand.

California’s Theory Versus Bruen’s Test

NRA-ILA argues the state has flipped the test on its head – branding a ubiquitous design as “convertible” while ignoring that the conversion (not the design) is the crime. Jared Yanis stresses that unless California can show a historical tradition of banning broad categories of otherwise-legal handguns because of hypothetical modifications, §27595(a) fails. That’s a steep hill. Even California has conceded in prior litigation that arms in common use cannot be banned. My take: if the state’s best analogy is 20th-century machine-gun regulation, that’s too recent and too dissimilar to clear Bruen’s bar.

What William Kirk Expects The State To Argue – And Why It Still Falls Short

Kirk anticipates California will insist “it’s not all handguns – just those with a cruciform bar.” But the complaint answers that head-on: constitutional protection does not fracture at the level of internal parts. A ban on a quintessential class of handguns – the very thing Heller protects – is not saved by narrowing it to a particular firing mechanism, especially when that mechanism is common and the firearms are mainstream. Narrow tailoring can’t cure the wrong category.

Why This Case Could Ripple Beyond California

NRA-ILA positions Jaymes v. Bonta as a defense of the Supreme Court’s core holdings, not just a parochial fight about one brand. Jared Yanis goes further: a strong injunction and eventual win could deter other states from trying “backdoor bans” through novel definitions. William at Copper Jacket TV echoes that hope, calling this one a “slam dunk” on the law if the court applies Heller and Bruen faithfully. This is precisely the terrain the Supreme Court staked out – handguns, common use, self-defense. If that terrain can be fenced off through manufacturing geometry, then “common use” means less than advertised.

Bottom Line – And What To Watch Next

Here’s the short version, drawn from all four sources: NRA-ILA says AB 1127 defies Supreme Court precedent by outlawing common handguns; William Kirk maps the enforcement timeline and the complaint’s structure; William (Copper Jacket TV) underscores the speed, plaintiffs, and requested injunction; Jared Yanis explains why banning guns for accepting already-illegal parts is constitutionally and logically indefensible. My advice as an observer: watch for an early motion for a preliminary injunction, the state’s historical-analogue brief under Bruen, and whether the court recognizes that “common use” ends this case before it starts.

If the state wants to curb criminal conversion devices, it already has tools – enforce existing bans on auto sears and switches, prosecute traffickers, and target violent misuse. Banning the lawful baseline – millions of ordinary handguns – doesn’t punish the guilty; it punishes the norm. And under Heller and Bruen, that’s exactly what the Second Amendment forbids.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.