Opinion

California’s recent surge in gun control legislation, especially Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans Glock and Glock-style handguns, reveals a troubling pattern of the state enacting laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and established Supreme Court rulings. This relentless legislative push threatens the constitutional rights of California citizens and demands urgent corrective action.

The Second Amendment and Supreme Court Guidance

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Landmark Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that this right includes possessing firearms for lawful self-defense. The Court emphasized that the right to self-defense is central to the Amendment and that restrictions cannot apply to weapons “in common use.” California ignores this legal precedent.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court reaffirmed this position, ruling that gun regulations must reflect the historical understanding of the right at the time the Amendment was adopted. States must justify any restrictions based on this historical framework, especially when banning firearms like Glocks, which are essential tools for lawful self-defense.

Again, California ignores this legal precedent.

Glock Handguns: Arms in Common Use

Glocks are among the most popular handguns nationwide, with millions owned legally. The Supreme Court’s rulings make clear that firearms “in common use” cannot be banned outright. However, California’s AB 1127 targets Glock-style pistols based on a mechanical feature that allows illegal conversion devices to be installed, a threat already addressed under federal law. The ban ignores this context and unlawfully prohibits a firearm millions rely on for protection.

The Founders’ Intent

The Founding Fathers intended the right to bear arms as fundamental for personal defense and guarding liberty. James Madison described this right as “essential to the security of a free State.” Early firearm regulations targeted only dangerous or unusual weapons, not those commonly used for protection.

California’s approach conflicts with this vision by banning a popular firearm platform without historical precedent.

California’s Systematic Rights Erosion

California’s recent laws collectively erode Second Amendment rights:

• Assembly Bill 1127 (Glock Ban): Prohibits sales of Glock and similar pistols by focusing on a mechanical trait, effectively banning a widely owned and reliable firearm despite federal laws that already address the real threat this feature poses.
• Assembly Bill 1078 (Purchase Limits): Places limits on firearm purchases similar to a “one gun per month” rule previously struck down by courts for violating the right to acquire firearms.
• Assembly Bill 1263 (Criminalizing Firearm Component Manufacturing): Criminalizes certain firearm-related manufacturing activities in vague terms, unfairly penalizing lawful owners.
• Senate Bill 704 (Barrel Transfer Restrictions): Requires firearm barrels to be transferred only through licensed dealers, imposing unnecessary and unprecedented restrictions.
• Ammunition Background Check Law: Previously mandated background checks for ammunition purchases, a law the courts found unconstitutional because ammunition is essential for firearm use.

These laws reveal a concerted effort to chip away at fundamental rights through onerous restrictions, bans of popular firearms, and criminalization of lawful behavior, all beyond constitutional bounds.

The Vital Role of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition

It is crucial to recognize and commend the tireless efforts of organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation in leading the legal fight to protect our constitutional rights. These groups have been at the forefront of challenging AB 1127, filing lawsuits that seek to block this unconstitutional ban. Their unwavering commitment and leadership serve as a powerful example of how dedicated advocacy combined with strategic legal action can counter overreaching government efforts.

Their work ensures that Californians and all Americans have champions in court willing to take on complex and costly legal battles to preserve the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The ongoing litigation spearheaded by these organizations plays a critical role in holding governments accountable and reaffirming the rule of law. Lawsuits are not free, and freedom is not free. Join these defenders of freedom organizations.

Why This Must Stop

California’s persistent enactment of blatantly unconstitutional gun laws reflects a systemic problem that threatens fundamental rights. The state continues to pass legislation that effectively disarms law-abiding citizens, disregarding binding Supreme Court precedents and the Founders’ intent.

To address this, measures are needed:

• Prevent unconstitutional laws from advancing through judicial intervention.
• Reform California’s legislative process to require constitutional review before laws are enacted.
• Ensure federal oversight to uphold constitutional protections.
• Educate lawmakers and the public on the legal limits of firearm regulation.

Without such safeguards, Californians will face further erosion of their rights, with frequent litigation as the only recourse.

Defending Our Rights: A Call to Action

Combating California’s gun control overreach requires:

• Sustained and well-funded litigation to obtain injunctions against unconstitutional laws.
• Appeals to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to reaffirm Second Amendment protections.
• Federal legislation establishing baseline protections against state-level overreach.
• Political efforts to amend state constitutions and elect representatives who respect gun rights.
• Public education campaigns reinforcing constitutional rights and recent Supreme Court rulings.
• Pursuit of federal or judicial oversight where states violate constitutional mandates.

What actions can be taken to punish California lawmakers for purposefully passing legislation that violates the constitutional rights of its residents?

To hold California lawmakers accountable for repeatedly introducing and passing clearly unconstitutional laws, several punitive measures have been proposed or can be pursued to deter such behavior and uphold constitutional governance:

Salary Penalties for Constitutional Violations

One notable proposal is the “Punish Unconstitutional Actions Act,” which would impose financial penalties on lawmakers who pass or approve laws later found unconstitutional by courts. This could include cutting their state pay by a significant percentage (for example, 25%) for each violation, directly tying personal consequences to legislative misconduct. The goal is to incentivize lawmakers to respect constitutional limits and prevent reckless legislative overreach.

Legal Accountability and Ethics Actions

Lawmakers who knowingly violate constitutional rights through legislation could face ethics investigations and potential censure or disciplinary action by legislative bodies, reinforcing standards of responsible governance and constitutional fidelity.

Civil Liability and Lawsuits

Though rare, there is a possibility to pursue civil suits against public officials who enact unlawful legislation causing harm, particularly when constitutional rights are infringed and damages result. This could function as another deterrent against unconstitutional lawmaking.

Increased Voter Accountability

Voters can hold lawmakers politically accountable by voting them out of office, mobilizing awareness campaigns around constitutional violations, and supporting candidates committed to upholding constitutional rights. Which, traditionally, Californians fail to do.

Judicial Enforcement and Injunctions

Though not punitive in the traditional sense, courts can issue injunctions against unconstitutional laws rapidly, limiting the harm done and signaling that unconstitutional legislation will not stand. This judicial check indirectly pressures lawmakers to avoid unconstitutional measures.

Together, these mechanisms create a framework where lawmakers face direct or indirect consequences for disregarding constitutional limits, fostering more careful lawmaking respectful of constitutional rights. Public awareness and political engagement are critical to demanding and supporting such accountability.

California’s Glock ban is a direct challenge to constitutional guarantees affirmed by the Supreme Court and rooted in the nation’s founding principles. This legal and political battle is about more than a single firearm; it’s about standing up against the wholesale erosion of fundamental rights.

Ensuring the right to keep and bear arms requires decisive action in order to halt unconstitutional bans and uphold the rule of law. The courts and the public must act now to preserve the freedoms enshrined by the Constitution for generations to come. The work of steadfast advocates like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition gives hope that these rights will be defended and strengthened in the face of growing government overreach.

Wake up California!

---

About Sean Maloney.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!

 

Gun Rights Groups Sue California Over Newly Signed GLOCK Handgun Ban