The Department of Justice has warned California that it may sue the state over a new law restricting the sale of certain Glock-style handguns, setting up a possible federal-state clash over gun rights just days before the measure is scheduled to take effect.
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon sent a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta arguing that the state’s law violates the Second Amendment. The law, known as Assembly Bill 1127, is set to take effect on July 1 and would prohibit licensed firearms dealers from selling or transferring certain semiautomatic pistols that California defines as “machinegun-convertible.”
Supporters of the law say it is aimed at firearms that can be modified with illegal conversion devices, sometimes called switches, which can allow a semiautomatic pistol to fire like a fully automatic weapon. California officials and gun-control advocates argue that the measure targets a serious public safety risk and is designed to reduce access to weapons that can be easily converted for criminal use.
The Justice Department sees the issue differently. In the letter, Dhillon argued that Californians have a constitutional right to acquire modern handguns for self-defense and should not be forced to rely on older models because the state has chosen to restrict newer designs. She said the department had approved the filing of a federal complaint, but would consider delaying legal action if California agrees to enter pre-suit negotiations.
TRENDING TODAY
The DOJ demand reportedly calls for California to stop enforcing the challenged laws, acknowledge that they are unconstitutional and agree to a court-enforceable order barring similar restrictions in the future. State officials were given a deadline to respond before the federal government moves forward.
AB 1127 does not require current owners to give up covered firearms. Instead, it focuses on future sales and transfers by licensed dealers. The law also includes exemptions for law enforcement and military sales. That distinction is likely to become central in court, where California may argue that it is regulating commercial access to a narrow category of weapons rather than banning possession outright.
Gun-rights groups have already challenged the law, arguing that it effectively blocks the sale of widely used handguns and violates Supreme Court precedent protecting firearms commonly used for lawful purposes. Those groups say California is punishing lawful gun owners and manufacturers for the criminal misuse of illegal aftermarket devices.
The legal dispute could become another major test of how courts apply the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment rulings. Since the high court’s Bruen decision, judges have been asked to evaluate gun restrictions by looking at whether they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That standard has made many state gun laws more vulnerable to constitutional challenges.
California has long been one of the most aggressive states in regulating firearms, and Newsom has repeatedly defended strict gun laws as necessary to reduce violence. But the Trump administration’s Justice Department has signaled a more confrontational approach toward state restrictions it views as infringing on gun rights.
For ordinary Californians, the case could affect what handguns are available for purchase through licensed dealers. For gun owners, it raises questions about self-defense rights and access to modern firearms. For communities concerned about gun violence, the debate centers on whether states should be allowed to restrict firearms that officials believe are more easily converted into illegal automatic weapons.
The case also has national implications. If the DOJ sues and wins, similar state efforts to regulate convertible firearms could face major legal obstacles. If California prevails, other states may feel more confident passing laws aimed at conversion-device risks.
The fight is not only about one brand or one state law. It is about where courts draw the line between public safety regulation and constitutional protection. California says it is trying to stop the spread of illegally modified weapons. The DOJ says the state is blocking access to common handguns that law-abiding citizens may use for self-defense.
Why It Matters
The dispute matters because it could become a major Second Amendment test case involving modern handgun technology, state regulation and federal enforcement. California argues the law is designed to address illegal conversion risks, while the Justice Department argues the state is restricting constitutionally protected firearms.
The outcome could affect gun owners, licensed firearms dealers, law enforcement policy and other states considering similar restrictions. It may also shape how courts treat firearm laws after recent Supreme Court rulings strengthened protections for gun possession and self-defense.
What Comes Next
California must decide whether to enter negotiations with the Justice Department or prepare for a federal lawsuit. If the DOJ files suit, the case will likely focus on whether AB 1127 restricts common firearms protected by the Second Amendment or whether the state has authority to regulate pistols it says can be easily converted into illegal machine guns.
Separate lawsuits from gun-rights groups may also continue moving through federal court. Together, those cases could determine whether California’s Glock-style handgun restrictions survive or are blocked before they can be fully enforced.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the Justice Department notified California officials to drop the handgun restrictions or face a federal lawsuit.
Tick tock! On July 1, CA plans to impose an unconstitutional “Glock Ban.”
Today, I notified @CAGovernor & @AGRobBonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned! pic.twitter.com/xhGmRt4VPz— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 24, 2026
