The Justice Department is taking direct aim at California's firearms restrictions, and Governor Gavin Newsom now has a serious legal fight on his hands.
As USA Journal reported, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division announced a new federal lawsuit challenging both California's ban on Glock handguns and its broader handgun roster law. Dhillon made the announcement on X, pulling no punches in her language.
"The Supreme Court made clear: the 2nd Amendment is not a second class right. Some states aren't getting the message," Dhillon wrote. "Every gun-grabber should note: Banning the most popular pistol in America violates the 2nd Amendment, and CivilRights is taking action!"
The legal foundation for this challenge has been building for years. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen reshaped Second Amendment jurisprudence in profound ways, giving gun rights advocates powerful new tools to dismantle restrictive firearms laws across the country. More recently, the Court reaffirmed in Wolford v. Lopez that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry handguns outside the home for self defense, and that states cannot bar citizens from using commonly owned firearms for that purpose.
California's Glock ban is a particularly ripe target for legal challenge. The state moved to prohibit retail purchases of Glock handguns and firearms with similar firing mechanisms based on the concern that criminals might install so called "Glock switches" to convert the weapons to fully automatic fire. Here's the thing, though: manufacturing and possessing those switches is already illegal, and criminals are already legally prohibited from owning any firearms at all. So the state essentially decided to punish law abiding gun owners for crimes that other people might theoretically commit. Constitutional scholars, take note.
On top of the Glock ban, California's existing handgun roster further restricts which handguns residents can legally purchase, creating a narrowing list of approved models that critics say amounts to a slow motion ban on new handgun technology.
The DOJ's Civil Rights Division framed the lawsuit in unmistakable terms. "This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms," Dhillon said in the department's press release.
It's worth pausing on a point that often gets lost in these debates. The Second Amendment does not grant Americans the right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes that right as fundamental and pre-existing, then prohibits the government from infringing upon it. That distinction matters, both legally and philosophically.
In the post-Bruen legal environment, California's restrictions face an uphill battle in court. The Supreme Court has made clear that firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and banning the single most popular handgun in America is going to be a tough sell under that standard. Even if this case winds its way up to the highest court, the current judicial landscape favors the challengers.
For Second Amendment advocates, this lawsuit represents another significant step in a string of legal victories. The federal government is now actively using its civil rights enforcement apparatus to protect gun rights rather than restrict them, a dramatic shift that would look very different had the 2024 presidential election gone the other way.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
