On October 13, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit against Gavin Newsom’s ban on Glocks and similarly designed striker-fired pistols, signed into law on October 10.
Jaymes v. Bonta was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief.
“The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own, and California doesn’t get to tell people that their rights end where Governor Newsom’s tyrannical, anti-Second Amendment politics begin. Every American has a right to choose the tools they trust to defend their lives and liberty. We look forward to ending this insanely unconstitutional scheme just as we have many others,” said FPC President Brandon Combs, in an email statement.
Second Amendment Foundation made the following statement on X:
This is the same California, mind you, that is already subject to an injunction over the unconstitutionality of its “Unsafe Handgun Act” – or approved handgun roster. Rather than respecting the Second Amendment rights of its residents, California lawmakers instead expanded their ban on commonly owned handguns.
The NRA also wrote on X:
Our message to Newsom is simple: we will see you in court. At its core, AB 1127 is just another attempt to villainize certain categories of firearms to impose further gun bans in California. This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.
The 10-page complaint states its case simply:
A law that bans the sale of—and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring—a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment. Semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way. The Supreme Court has already held that handguns are in common use and cannot be banned.
The complaint goes on to illustrate how the California law undermines Supreme Court precedent (not to mention the 27 words of the Constitution):
Even considered as their own group (which, under Heller, they should not be), the banned handguns are constitutionally protected. They are also unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes. In fact, they are among the most popular handguns in the nation.
This lawsuit does not address the other two bills he signed on the same day, one of which requires background checks for firearm barrels and the other, which limits the acquisition of handguns to three per month.
