Dhillon Says DOJ Will Sue Over California’s Ban on Glocks

June 25, 2026
2:01 am

▶

Listen to Article

The Department of Justice’s threat to sue California over its impending Glock ban is more than a legal skirmish—it’s a direct shot across the bow of the state’s increasingly creative attempts to sidestep federal protections for the right to keep and bear arms. By targeting a specific manufacturer’s popular pistols under the guise of “assault weapon” restrictions, Sacramento is once again trying to criminalize the most common self-defense tool in America, betting that courts will look the other way if the ban is dressed up as a “safety” measure. The DOJ’s willingness to intervene signals that the new administration sees these state-level workarounds for what they are: unconstitutional end-runs around Heller, Bruen, and the plain text of the Second Amendment. For the 2A community, this development is both validation and a warning shot. It validates years of litigation arguing that states cannot simply re-label common firearms as contraband to achieve de facto confiscation, and it warns anti-gun lawmakers that the federal government is now willing to use its own enforcement muscle rather than leaving the battlefield entirely to private plaintiffs. If the suit moves forward, expect a rapid escalation in copycat legislation across blue states, followed by an equally swift wave of injunctions that could finally begin to roll back the post-Bruen lawfare that has kept millions of law-abiding citizens disarmed. The real test will be whether DOJ follows through with discovery that exposes just how little empirical evidence supports these bans—something the gun-control lobby has successfully avoided for decades. In practical terms, California’s Glock owners now face a July 1 deadline that may prove more symbolic than substantive if the federal suit lands first. The episode underscores a larger truth: the Second Amendment is no longer defended solely by grassroots groups and beleaguered FFLs; it now has an institutional ally inside the Department of Justice itself. That shift changes the cost-benefit calculation for every state legislator tempted to pass the next “high-capacity magazine” or “assault weapon” ban, and it gives the broader pro-2A movement breathing room to focus on restoring constitutional carry and ending the unconstitutional pistol-roster regime rather than playing perpetual defense.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

For the 2A community, this development is both validation and a warning shot. It validates years of litigation arguing that states cannot simply re-label common firearms as contraband to achieve de facto confiscation, and it warns anti-gun lawmakers that the federal government is now willing to use its own enforcement muscle rather than leaving the battlefield entirely to private plaintiffs. If the suit moves forward, expect a rapid escalation in copycat legislation across blue states, followed by an equally swift wave of injunctions that could finally begin to roll back the post-Bruen lawfare that has kept millions of law-abiding citizens disarmed. The real test will be whether DOJ follows through with discovery that exposes just how little empirical evidence supports these bans—something the gun-control lobby has successfully avoided for decades.

In practical terms, California’s Glock owners now face a July 1 deadline that may prove more symbolic than substantive if the federal suit lands first. The episode underscores a larger truth: the Second Amendment is no longer defended solely by grassroots groups and beleaguered FFLs; it now has an institutional ally inside the Department of Justice itself. That shift changes the cost-benefit calculation for every state legislator tempted to pass the next “high-capacity magazine” or “assault weapon” ban, and it gives the broader pro-2A movement breathing room to focus on restoring constitutional carry and ending the unconstitutional pistol-roster regime rather than playing perpetual defense.

Share this story