California Tells Court Glock-Style Pistols Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

July 9, 2026
4:30 am

▶

Listen to Article

California’s latest filing in federal court claims that Glock-style pistols fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are “not in common use” for self-defense—an argument that collapses under its own weight the moment you look at sales data. More than twenty million Glock-pattern handguns have been sold in the United States, making them the single most popular defensive firearm platform in the country; courts have already recognized that commonality when they struck down magazine bans and assault-weapon restrictions in other circuits. By insisting these pistols are somehow “unusual,” California is not interpreting the Constitution—it is rewriting the factual record to justify a policy it has already lost at the Supreme Court in Bruen. The deeper implication is that the state is testing how far it can stretch the “common use” test before the judiciary pushes back. If a pistol carried daily by law-abiding citizens in every other state can be reclassified as unprotected simply because Sacramento dislikes its ergonomics or aftermarket ecosystem, then the Second Amendment becomes a privilege doled out by legislative taste rather than a right anchored in text, history, and tradition. That reading would let California—or any state—ban the next generation of defensive firearms simply by regulating them out of existence first and then claiming they were never commonly owned. For the 2A community the message is clear: this is not an isolated skirmish over one model of pistol but a coordinated attempt to shrink the Amendment’s scope through litigation rather than legislation. Every shop that sells a Glock-pattern handgun, every range that rents one, and every citizen who carries one is now part of the factual record that will either preserve or erode that protection. The case will likely reach the Ninth Circuit and, quite possibly, the Supreme Court; how those courts treat the “common use” evidence will determine whether the right to keep and bear arms remains tethered to reality or becomes whatever the nearest attorney general says it is.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

The deeper implication is that the state is testing how far it can stretch the “common use” test before the judiciary pushes back. If a pistol carried daily by law-abiding citizens in every other state can be reclassified as unprotected simply because Sacramento dislikes its ergonomics or aftermarket ecosystem, then the Second Amendment becomes a privilege doled out by legislative taste rather than a right anchored in text, history, and tradition. That reading would let California—or any state—ban the next generation of defensive firearms simply by regulating them out of existence first and then claiming they were never commonly owned.

For the 2A community the message is clear: this is not an isolated skirmish over one model of pistol but a coordinated attempt to shrink the Amendment’s scope through litigation rather than legislation. Every shop that sells a Glock-pattern handgun, every range that rents one, and every citizen who carries one is now part of the factual record that will either preserve or erode that protection. The case will likely reach the Ninth Circuit and, quite possibly, the Supreme Court; how those courts treat the “common use” evidence will determine whether the right to keep and bear arms remains tethered to reality or becomes whatever the nearest attorney general says it is.

Share this story