In Jaymes v. Bonta, filed on October 13, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, a coalition of plaintiffs led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is suing California Attorney General Rob Bonta over a newly enacted firearm restriction. The case represents the latest flashpoint in the ongoing legal battle over the reach of the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
At the heart of the lawsuit is California Assembly Bill 1127. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2025, will take effect on July 1, 2026, and prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling, transferring, or delivering what California calls “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” The statute targets handguns with a “cruciform trigger bar,” a design feature found primarily in Glock and Glock-style pistols. Glocks are the most popular handguns in the United States.
The plaintiffs argue that the new law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by effectively banning the commercial sale of one of the most common handguns in America. They assert that the ban prevents ordinary, law-abiding Californians from acquiring firearms that are “in common use,” which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held are protected under the Constitution.
The plaintiffs include individual gun owners, firearms dealers, and major gun rights organizations. Danielle Jaymes, a San Diego County resident, alleges she would purchase one of the banned handguns after July 2026 if the law were not in place. PWGG, L.P., doing business as Poway Weapons & Gear, and its president, John Phillips, claim the law will prevent them from selling popular handguns they have legally sold for over a decade. The NRA, FPC, and SAF joined as organizational plaintiffs representing their members statewide.
Their attorneys, led by Bradley Benbrook of Benbrook Law Group and David Thompson of the Washington, D.C.-based Cooper & Kirk firm, seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the Court to strike down the law before it takes effect. The plaintiffs frame the case as a clear constitutional question: whether the state can prohibit the sale of handguns that millions of Americans own and use lawfully.
Live Inventory Price Checker
 |
19 Gen 5 Mos 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen 5 Mos 9mm Luger 4.02'''' Bbl (3)15rd Mag Black | Brownells.com | $ 620.00 | |
| Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS FS 4.02" 9MM (3)15rd Pistol, Geodesic Camo w/ Hybrid Stipple - GLOGPA195S203RMRGC | Palmetto State Armory | $ 749.99 $ 649.99 | ||
 |
Glock 19 Gen 5 9mm Pistol - 15rd MOS | Rainier Arms | $ 679.99 | |
 |
Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS FS 10 Round 9mm Pistol, Black - PA195S201MOS | Palmetto State Armory | $ 749.99 $ 620.00 |
Under AB 1127, dealers may not “sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” The law defines such a pistol as any semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily converted” into a machine gun through the installation of a “pistol converter.” These small attachments replace the slide’s backplate and are known as “Glock switches.”
California already bans pistol converters and treats them as illegal machine guns under state and federal law. But the new statute goes further by prohibiting the underlying pistols themselves, even when sold without any converter device. In effect, the plaintiffs argue, the law punishes manufacturers and dealers for selling perfectly legal semiautomatic firearms merely because those guns share a design characteristic that could allow modification.
According to the complaint, this approach mirrors and expands upon California’s longstanding restrictions on so-called “unsafe handguns,” a regulatory scheme that has been under continuous constitutional challenge. The plaintiffs note that in Renna v. Bonta, the same federal district court found that California’s “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale” likely violated the Second Amendment because it excluded many popular firearm models, including certain Glocks. That case is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
The plaintiffs base their case on Heller and Bruen, which established that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes such as self-defense. In Heller, the Supreme Court declared that “handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapon” and that an outright ban on their possession is unconstitutional. In Bruen, the Court extended that reasoning, rejecting broad discretionary licensing regimes and clarifying that any firearm regulation must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
Citing those precedents, the plaintiffs contend that California’s new law fails the Bruen test. They argue that the state cannot demonstrate a historical tradition of banning entire categories of semiautomatic handguns based on design features, primarily when those firearms are widely owned and used by millions of Americans.
The complaint further emphasizes that Glock pistols are among the most common firearms in civilian hands. The plaintiffs cite industry data showing that Glock manufactured over half a million handguns for the U.S. market in 2021 alone, and that multiple Glock models consistently rank among the top-selling handguns nationwide. “These handguns are not unusual,” the complaint states, “and thus cannot be considered dangerous and unusual in a constitutional sense.”
Although the complaint does not include the state’s defense, lawmakers supporting AB 1127 justified the measure as a public-safety initiative aimed at preventing the spread of “easily convertible firearms.” California’s legislature designed AB 1127 to close what it perceives as a loophole in current law by targeting handguns compatible with those devices.
Critics, however, argue that the law punishes lawful gun owners and dealers for criminal misuse of conversion devices that are already illegal. They view the measure as another example of California pushing the boundaries of firearm regulation, inviting yet another constitutional showdown in federal Court.
If successful, Jaymes v. Bonta could have far-reaching implications beyond California. A ruling striking down the Glock-style handgun ban would reinforce the trend of federal courts scrutinizing modern firearm restrictions under Bruen. Conversely, if the law is upheld, it could embolden other states to adopt similar restrictions targeting firearms based on their mechanical design.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction preventing its enforcement. They also request attorneys’ fees.
As California continues to push the limits of gun regulation and the Supreme Court tightens constitutional standards under the Second Amendment, this case is poised to become another major test in the ongoing national debate over the scope of lawful gun control.
America’s 3D Gun Printing Boom …Smells Like Good Old Freedom In Action
Supreme Court Weighs Warrantless Home Entries in Case v. Montana
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/QCbPHfo
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment