Home » Blogs » Gun-Rights Coalition Sues Over Glock Ban

Gun-Rights Coalition Sues Over Glock Ban

Mark Chesnut - comments 10 comments
NRA Warns California Gun Owners: 7 Anti-Gun Bills Are Still Alive

The ink from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pen was barely dry on the recently passed legislation banning Glock handguns before several gun-rights groups joined to file a lawsuit challenging the ban.

On October 13, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed the lawsuit challenging the ban, just three days after Gov. Newsom—arguably America’s most anti-gun governor—signed the measure into law.

Under AB 1127, California firearm dealers will be prohibited from selling a broad class of popular and constitutionally protected semi-automatic handguns, including Glocks. It specifically bans the sale of “…any semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools…into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s backplate without any additional engineering, machining, or modification of the pistol’s trigger mechanism.”

“These handguns are in common use; indeed, they are among the most popular firearms in the nation,” the filing in Jaynes v. Bonta explains. If the law takes effect, Californians “will have no practical way to acquire them”—a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a news release announcing the lawsuit that the law is an obvious violation of the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

“The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own, and California doesn’t get to tell people that their rights end where Governor Newsom’s tyrannical, anti-Second Amendment politics begin,” Combs said. “Every American has a right to choose the tools they trust to defend their lives and liberty. We look forward to ending this insanely unconstitutional scheme just as we have many others.”

Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said the move by California is just another in a long line of infringements

“Prior to AB 1127, Gen 3 Glock, and similar handguns built on the Glock platform, were available for commercial sale because they were grandfathered onto California’s handgun roster,” Sack said in a news release. “California is already subject to an injunction because the California Handgun Roster unconstitutionally bans handguns in common use for lawful purposes. Rather than heed the demands of the Second Amendment and their own courts, California lawmakers have responded by doubling down and expanding their handgun ban. We’ll see them in court.” 

In a news item on its website, NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) wrote that the way the legislation is written means the ban applies to Glock-manufactured semiautomatic handguns and similar handguns built on a Glock platform.

“Our lawsuit argues that California’s ban on Glock-style handguns violates the Second Amendment,” the news item stated. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that ‘common’ arms cannot be banned, and moreover, that handguns cannot be banned. California’s ban on many of the most popular handguns in America blatantly defies the Court’s precedent.”

10 thoughts on “Gun-Rights Coalition Sues Over Glock Ban”

  1. I doubt that the subjects of Kalifornistan will up and flee the prison camp over this, and Screwsome knows it – they’ve been putting up with “The Roster” for so long they’ve become completely numb to the edicts they are handed.
    ” Please sir, may I have some more. ” … and any suits against the state get tied up for years and years as the commoners try to raise money to go after the Ruler’s Court with their unlimited coffers.
    Might I suggest escaping while there’s still Free States to escape to?

    Reply
    • Realistically there was no possible legal remedy in the 9th or 2nd circuits until 3 years ago so that part I would question. The potential for living conditions to get way worse for other reasons is a big motivation for the ongoing outflow of population there and elsewhere.

      Reply
    • No, we are not numb, we are simply resigned to the reality that litigation in the state courts or the Ninth Circuit are agonizingly slow and unlikely to result in a positive outcome, and that it takes many years before a case is even eligible for Supreme Court consideration. Nonetheless, we keep trying.

      All things considered, the Roster is of a lesser annoyance than other restrictions. Larger issues include the ban on purchases of ammunition off the internet (meaning higher costs and limited supplies), the essential regulatory elimination of tabletop FFLs (which greatly increases costs as most brick and mortar stores will not accept shipments or charge $75 to $100 to perform the transfer), and the recent tacked on 11% excise tax over and above sales tax and transfer fees for both guns and ammunition. CCW delays vary by county (not mine), but the larger issue is the limitation on areas where carry is “still” permitted, such that it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for many people t spend $500 to $1000 to get a license that is only good for two years (yes, renewals are much cheaper).

      Reply
  2. Is duck hunting still a big thing in California, what about other species.
    Newscum stop them guns for the safety of your state.
    Tax your people until they move.
    Create the elites only state you desire and depend on your imported small portion laborers to sustain your hierarchy lifestyles.

    Reply
    • Lots of duck hunters here. The state is on a main migration route. Deer hunting is quite popular, but opportunities for sheep or elk are extremely limited.

      Reply
  3. Unfortunately I have heard that Glock has discontinued production of Gen 3 guns. THis means that if this case was somehow own or even got a PI because its so blatantly illegal and Unconstitutional, there wouldn’t be any Glocks to reinstate.

    Commifornia will never allow Glock Gen 4 and 5s to be sold here because they lack the illegal and Unconstitutional requirement of an MDM and LCI, two features that Glock have said they will never add to any of their pistols.

    The lawsuit will help with Glock clones like the Shadow Systems guns and the Derya DY9 at least but Glocks will likely never be sold in Commifornia again, other than the LEOs and exempt people (funny how all of these features that maker guns supposedly more dangerous are fine for LEOs and exempt persons but not for the plebes?)

    Reply
  4. Well enough people in California didn’t like guns so they voted for Newsom.
    When more people in California like guns they won’t vote for Newsom.

    Reply
  5. Well, KKKalifornia under Newscum is a preview of the US if the Dimocrats/Leftists/fascists (ah, but I repeat myself, thrice!) ever regain control. Yes, the “register” was an obvious, absurdly biased, unconstitutional restriction on the RKBA. What Governor Hair Gel is too stupid to figure out is that the ONLY reason the register survived as long as it did is that the gun manufacturers are much smarter than he is (but, then, that statement would apply to 99.9% of breathing vertebrates).

    But even Governor Hair Gel couldn’t miss the chance to ban the single most popular handgun in the US, so he signed this idiotic piece of legislation, that violates both Bruen and Heller. Good luck with that, Hair Gel. Although we all know it will take probably 5 years, this bill is GOING to get slam-dunked into the weeds by SCOTUS (unless that limp windsock, Roberts, can convince his sensible colleagues to ignore the suit and deny certiorari).

    Almost ANY semi-auto handgun or rifle can be modified to fire on “automatic”. And the problem with that is???? Oh, you hoplophobes think it’s “icky” that normal citizens could possess firearms of equal capacity to those possessed by the military. Go back and read Miller, Bruen, Heller, and restate your “case” for denying civilians access to any weapon used as an issue weapon by a branch of the military.

    I would say I’d wait for your response, but given the quarter-witted nature of most Leftist/fascists (say, for example, MajorSkidmarks), I’d be waiting for a long damn time. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you Leftist @$$holes not understand?

    Reply
    • Mostly I think the don’t understand the idea that our society should be able to have ammo vending machines and full auto sales in general stores. That is my goal, likely won’t see it happen but want to set it up that my kids might.

      Reply

Leave a Comment