The United States government has taken the State of California to court over its strict handgun regulations, claiming the state’s laws create an unconstitutional barrier for citizens trying to buy modern firearms.
In a 17-page complaint filed July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Department of Justice targets two major pillars of California’s firearm statutes: the restriction on “machine-gun convertible” pistols—frequently referred to as the “Glock Ban”—and the state’s official roster of approved handguns.
According to the lawsuit, California Penal Code Section 27595(a) makes it illegal for licensed dealers to sell pistols with a cruciform trigger bar if they can be easily modified into automatic weapons using common household tools and a third-party converter.
The federal government argues this standard effectively bans nearly all Glock and Glock-style handguns, which are among the most popular self-defense choices in the country. The complaint notes that neither Glock nor other major manufacturers create these conversion devices, and argues that outlawing a legal firearm simply because it could be modified is legally unsound.
The legal challenge also targets California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). Under current state rules, any new semiautomatic handgun sold at retail must be listed on an official state roster and feature specific mechanisms, including a chamber-load indicator and a magazine-disconnect mechanism. A separate microstamping requirement, which requires guns to imprint identifying characters onto fired shell casings, was recently delayed by the state legislature until January 1, 2028.
The Department of Justice highlights that these stringent engineering mandates resulted in zero new handgun models being added to the approved sales roster between 2013 and 2023.
The filing points back to previous observations from the central district court in Boland v. Bonta, quoting: “Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home.”
The lawsuit relies heavily on recent Supreme Court precedents, such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, which dictate that firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical traditions. The federal government asserts that because handguns are in common use for lawful purposes, California bears a burden it cannot meet to justify a commercial ban.
Named as defendants are the State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity as the head of the California Department of Justice. The federal government is bringing the lawsuit under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, arguing that state law enforcement officers are engaged in a pattern or practice that deprives individuals of their constitutional rights.
The United States is asking the court for a declaratory judgment cementing the unconstitutionality of the statutes, alongside a permanent injunction to halt California authorities from enforcing both the Glock restrictions and the roster mandates.
READ: Trump Blasts Communists, Crowns Teddy Roosevelt The Ultimate ‘He-Man’
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
