As we've noted in this space in the past, the Department of Justice under President Trump is, for the first time in history, taking the side of Americans' Second Amendment rights.
That doesn't mean there isn't still a fight to be had.
California in particular has been poking the bear, enacting a ban on Glock and other striker-fired handguns - easily the most popular single class of firearms in the country - and creating a list of handguns Californians are allowed to buy, at least for now.
Earlier this month, the DOJ filed for a restraining order against the law, which would have forestalled the measure taking effect:
“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “We will work to stop this blatant trampling of our rights by the California government to protect the rights of lawful gun owners.”
“The Civil Rights Division will defend law-abiding citizens from states that seek to disarm them illegally,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms.”
A Biden-appointed District court judge has denied the application for the restraining order:
A U.S. District Judge has refused to grant the DOJ's request for a temporary restraining order freezing enforcement of California's so-called "Glock Ban," which was passed by the state's Democratic supermajority and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2025. The ruling did not…
— Legal Newsline (@LegalNewsline) July 10, 2026
And Judge Almadani's reasoning behind this is, apparently, because the government defending the Second Amendment is "novel" - something the bench isn't used to:
While there may be merit to the United States’ claim that AB 1127 unlawfully restricts California constituents’ access to Glock and Glock-type pistols, the novel approach the United State employs to stake its claim is not obviously sound. To determine this novel issue, the Court will need to carefully interpret the statute and examine its plain language, legislative history, and historical usage, which it cannot achieve here due to the accelerated nature of a TRO. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant the TRO given the uncertain viability of the United States’ claim pursuant to Section 12601
And because it's just a little bit of infringement:
AB 1127 does not prohibit the possession of semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistols; it bans firearms dealers from selling the pistols. See Cal. Penal Code § 27595(a). There are several exceptions to the law that allow for the continued acquisition of these pistols. For example, firearms dealers are permitted to sell remaining inventory of the convertible pistols received prior to January 1, 2026, id. § 27595(c)(1), and private individuals may acquire convertible pistols from private parties through a licensed firearms dealer, id. § 27595(c)(3). The law also includes carveouts for the transfer of machinegun-convertible pistols under various circumstances. Jd. § 27595(c)(4), (6)-(8) (permitting the transfer of machinegun-convertible pistols to a gunsmith for service or repair, to a private party after temporary safekeeping storage or after a period of temporary prohibition, and to a forensic laboratory employee within the scope and course of employment).
If you're digging for a word to describe Judge Almadani's reasoning? As Cam Edwards points out, "obtuse" fits the bill:
This is just silly. We're now almost halfway through July. Any stock that dealers might have had on hand on January 1 has surely been significantly depleted, and there is no way for those FFLs to legally acquire more. All of the other "carve-outs" Almadani mentions involve transfers of currently-owned guns, and none of them allow for private party sales or transfers from one ordinary California citizen to another. I'd say it's pretty flipping clear that carveouts or not, most California citizens are unable to acquire Glock and Glock-style pistols. That's certainly the intent of the legislation.
Look for this action to join the wildebeest-like migration of litigation up through the federal court system.
