A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden has turned down the Justice Department’s motion for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked California’s ban on Glocks and other striker-fired pistols from being enforced, arguing in part that the ban doesn’t amount to a total prohibition on purchasing the popular handguns.
U.S. District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani also seems skeptical about the DOJ’s rationale for filing suit against the ban, which she calls a “novel theory under Section 12601 that California is a governmental authority whose law enforcement officers are engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights by enforcing AB 1127.”
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.
While it’s true that the DOJ Civil Rights Division has never brought a pattern and practice suit alleging violations of the Second Amendment before Harmeet K. Dhillon took over as head of the division, it’s also plainly true that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right protected by the text of the Constitution, and as such, the Civil Rights Division should have the authority to litigate in this area. The Supreme Court has warned lower courts against treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right, but that’s exactly what the judge is doing here.
But as I mentioned, Almadani also doesn’t seem convinced that the ban on some of the most popular handguns in the country is all that prohibitive.
The United States argues that the “deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably’ constitutes irreparable injury.” The Court does not deny the significance of the alleged constitutional injury but finds that the United States has failed to show that irreparable harm will occur through the enforcement of AB 1127.
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).
Given the exceptions established in AB 1127, it is not clear that California citizens are prohibited outright from acquiring Glock and Glock-style pistols. The United States therefore fails to make a “clear showing” that it is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” it seeks in the TRO Application.
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.
I’m not all that shocked that a Biden-appointed judge is siding with California over the DOJ, but it’s still disappointing to see. Denying Californians access to arms that are commonly owned for lawful purposes like self-defense sure seems like their rights are being irreparably harmed to me. The DOJ’s lawsuit challenging enforcement of the striker-fired pistol ban will continue, but the state will be able to continue enforcing the ban while the case proceeds to trial.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
