A coalition of gun rights organizations filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court on Wednesday to halt the enforcement of California’s newly expanded handgun restrictions.
The legal filing was submitted as part of Renna v. Bonta, an existing federal lawsuit challenging California’s firearm regulations. The lawsuit was recently updated to target Assembly Bill 1127, a measure passed by state lawmakers last October that expanded the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act.
Under the provisions that took effect on July 1, 2026, licensed firearms dealers in California are barred from selling, offering, exchanging, giving, transferring, or delivering any pistol classified by the state as a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.”
The legislation specifically defines this category to include handguns built with a cruciform trigger bar. That design mechanism is a core component in virtually all Glock models and similar firearms, which represent some of the most widely owned handguns in the United States.
The motion was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) alongside several co-plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, several local firearms dealers, and individual gun owners.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs contend that the state’s new prohibition violates previous federal court rulings regarding firearm ownership and common use.
“The Supreme Court has already explicitly held that handguns are constitutionally protected, and so are any arms in common use,” said Bill Sack, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations. “So, it figures that California lawmakers chose the most commonly used handguns to ban. We’re hopeful that our two ‘assault weapons’ ban cases, which will be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming term, will address this absurd law, but we also felt it critically important to prevent this ban’s enforcement in the meantime. Hence today’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
In the motion filed with the court, the legal team wrote that Section 27595 illegally restricts access to standard handguns already owned by millions of Americans.
“California’s decision to create a new and separate ban…to prohibit additional, commonly possessed handgun models is no more constitutional than the UHA ban already enjoined by this Court,” the motion states. “Section 27595’s cruciform-trigger-bar ban is flagrantly unconstitutional and, like the rest of the laws challenged in this suit, seeks to narrow the selection of ordinary handguns available to peaceable Californians.”
Representatives from the Second Amendment Foundation emphasized that the preliminary injunction is intended to halt enforcement while the underlying legal arguments move through the court system.
“It’s no surprise that fearmongering lawmakers in California have decided to categorically ban one of the most commonly owned handgun platforms in America,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President. “We’ve seen these kneejerk reactions time and time again in California and have routinely fought them as the Second Amendment infringements that they are. This case is no different.”
If granted by the judge, the injunction would pause state enforcement of the cruciform trigger bar ban while Renna v. Bonta works its way through federal court.
READ: DOJ Sues Pennsylvania Landlord Over Alleged Sexual Harassment And Furnace Neglect
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.
