A California federal district court judge has denied the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the state’s controversial ban on certain Glock-style pistols.
Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued the ruling in the case United States of America v. State of California et al. The lawsuit challenges the enactment of Assembly Bill (AB) 1127, which prohibits the sale of pistols equipped with cruciform (cross-shaped) triggers.
California lawmakers contend that these firearms can be easily converted into machine guns by attaching a device commonly known as a “Glock switch” or pistol converter. These compact devices attach to the rear of the slide, replacing the backplate and altering the trigger mechanism to enable fully automatic fire—potentially at rates exceeding 1,200 rounds per minute. Such switches are readily available for purchase on overseas websites or can be produced using 3D printers, raising concerns about their proliferation among criminals.
California’s Glock-Style Pistol Ban Remains in Effect
According to California, AB 1127, which took effect on July 1, 2026, specifically targets semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted into machine guns using common household tools like a screwdriver or file.
The law applies to licensed firearms dealers, making it unlawful for them to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver these “machinegun-convertible pistols.” Violations carry significant penalties, including fines, potential license suspension or revocation, and felony charges in some instances. Proponents, including anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action, argue the measure addresses emerging threats from DIY machine guns and ghost gun technology, aiming to enhance public safety without broadly infringing on rights. Pro-gun groups claim these reasons are just an excuse to ban the most popular handgun in the country.
DOJ Says California Is Banning Commonly Owned Handguns
The legislation effectively blocks the sale of new pistols featuring these triggers—including popular models from Glock, the most widely owned handgun platform in the United States—prompting the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to file suit.
“California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said when announcing the case.
Federal attorneys asserted that AB 1127 violates the Second Amendment, citing landmark Supreme Court precedents such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). These decisions affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes and require that gun regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The DOJ’s request for a TRO was submitted on the very day the law went into effect, seeking to immediately halt its enforcement while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds.
Judge Sidesteps the Second Amendment Question
In her decision, Judge Almadani – appointed by President Biden – declined to rule on the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. Instead, she focused on procedural and jurisdictional issues, citing 34 U.S.C. § 12601. This federal statute, originally enacted as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in response to high-profile police misconduct cases like the Rodney King beating, authorizes the DOJ to address patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct by law enforcement and related governmental agencies. It empowers the Attorney General to seek equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate systemic violations.
The judge determined that additional briefing is necessary to assess whether the DOJ has proper standing to sue under this provision in the context of challenging a state firearms regulation. As a result, she concluded it would be inappropriate to grant a TRO or preliminary injunction (PI) at this stage. Critics of the ruling argue that invoking a statute traditionally used for police reform cases represents a novel and potentially strained application when confronting state-level gun control measures.
The Constitutional Fight Is Far From Over
Judge Almadani reasoned that there is no immediate constitutional violation or irreparable harm because existing inventory remains available. California gun shops can still sell pistols with cruciform triggers that were acquired before January 1, 2026.
However, this assessment overlooks practical realities: many retailers may have limited or depleted pre-ban stock after seven months of uncertainty surrounding the law’s implementation. Prospective buyers would need to locate dealers holding compatible Glocks or similar models, a task that could prove difficult given high demand and the chilling effect of the impending ban.
This narrow view of harm has drawn skepticism from Second Amendment advocates, who maintain that restricting new sales of America’s most popular defensive handgun imposes a substantial burden on law-abiding citizens.
Notably, the opinion contains no substantive Second Amendment analysis under the Bruen framework, which demands a historical analogue for modern regulations. By relying primarily on § 12601 and the availability of old stock, the court effectively lowered the threshold for denying emergency relief. While the judge left open the possibility of revisiting a TRO or PI after further briefing on standing, the decision effectively delays resolution, punting the core constitutional questions further down the road.
As litigation continues, it could set important precedents regarding the limits of state authority, the scope of DOJ enforcement powers, and the application of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence to emerging firearm technologies.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
