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!

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC 20530

June 24, 2026

The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, 1021 O Street, Suite 9000, Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Robert Bonta, Attorney General of California, California Department of Justice 1300 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Notice of Suit: United States v. State of California and California Department of Justice

Dear Governor Newsom and General Bonta:

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2008). Because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense, a prohibition of their use is invalid. Id. at 629.

As you know, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 27595(a), as of July 1, 2026, it will be illegal for California firearms dealers to sell certain semiautomatic pistols. This statute is commonly known as the “Glock Ban,” because it will ban the sale of virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols. California’s ban on the sale of the most popular handgun in America violates the Second Amendment.

Moreover, to be sold at retail in California, a handgun must be listed on the State’s official “Handgun Roster.” To be listed on the Handgun Roster, certain handguns must have a chamber-load indicator, a magazine-disconnect mechanism, and, until recently, the ability to transfer microscopic characters representing the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto shell casings fired by the gun (commonly referred to as microstamping capability). As a result of these requirements, no new handguns were added to the Handgun Roster between 2013 and 2023, leading the court in Bolandv. Bonta, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2023), to hold as follows:

Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the [statute’s] requirements do exactly that … [T]hose requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined.

The injunction entered in Boland is stayed pending appeal, and the State’s legislature recently deferred the microstamping requirement until January 1, 2028. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated by the district court, these provisions of the Handgun Roster statute violate the econd Amendment.

This letter is to inform you that as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, I have authorized the filing of a complaint in federal district court against the State. The complaint will allege that the Glock Ban and the Handgun Roster statute violate the State’s citizens’ Second amendment rights by making it a crime to acquire constitutionally protected arms from firearms dealers, and that state law enforcement agencies’ implementation of the prohibition and threat of criminal enforcement constitute a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct. The United States is authorized to bring such an action bv 34 U.S.C. § 12601.

The Department will consider deferring the filing of the lawsuit for a short period if the State is willing to enter pre-suit negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter. Although the specific provisions are open to discussion, a resolution must at a minimum require that the State: (1) immediately cease enforcement of the laws identified above; (2) acknowledge the unconstitutionality of these laws; and (3) agree to enter into a court-enforceable consent decree permanently enjoining the State from violating its citizens’ constitutional rights through these or any similar laws.

This letter also serves as a document-retention notice. Please ensure that Stale official employees, and contractors preserve in their current form any and all records, including documents, photos, videos, files, tapes, emails and computer files, that may be relevant to this matter.

We hope that the State shares our interest in achieving a voluntary resolution of this matter. We ask that you inform us no later than June 30, 2026, whether the State is interested in ntering into pre-suit settlement negotiations. If we do not hear from you by 5:00 p.m. ET, June 30, 2026, the United States may file its complaint without further notice. If the State wishes to enter into pre-suit negotiations, please contact Barry Arrington, Acting Chief of the Division’s econd Amendment Section at barry.arrington@usdoj.

Regards,

Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division

Source: Harmeet Dhillon, via 𝕏