On July 10, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump DOJ's challenge to the state's ban on Glock-style pistols — the single most popular type of handgun in America. Judge Almadani, a Biden appointee sitting in the U.S. District Court, ruled that while the government's claims about the law "may have merit," the legal theory wasn't "obviously sound" enough to proceed.
Translation: you're probably right, but I'm not going to let you win.
The law in question is AB 1127, California's so-called "Glock Ban," signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2025 and effective January 1, 2026. It amended California Penal Code § 27595 to effectively ban the sale of Glock and Glock-type semi-automatic pistols to ordinary California citizens. The Trump administration's DOJ filed suit, arguing the law was an unconstitutional restriction on Second Amendment rights. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche put it plainly: "The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America."
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division, framed the lawsuit as part of the DOJ's broader enforcement posture. "This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms," Dhillon said.
Judge Almadani's actual ruling is worth reading carefully. The court acknowledged that AB 1127 "unlawfully restricts California constituents' access to Glock and Glock-type pistols" — that's the judge's own language. But then came the punt. Almadani wrote that "the novel approach the United States employs to stake its claim is not obviously sound," essentially ruling that the DOJ picked the wrong legal vehicle to challenge a law the judge conceded might be unconstitutional.
As Hot Air commentator Cam Edwards noted, the practical reality on the ground isn't complicated. "I'd say it's pretty flipping clear that carveouts or not, most California citizens are unable to acquire Glock and Glock-style pistols," Edwards wrote. The law bans the most widely owned handgun platform in the country from being sold to civilians, while law enforcement officers remain exempt. If you carry a badge in Sacramento, you can buy a Glock. If you're a taxpayer in Sacramento who wants to defend your family, you cannot.
The Biden administration ended in January 2025. Newsom signed AB 1127 months later, and Biden's judicial appointees are now the firewall protecting it. This is the long game that we've been watching for years — stack the federal bench with ideological allies, then let them do from the courtroom what you couldn't do from Congress. California couldn't get a national handgun ban through the legislature. But one judge, appointed by a president who's been out of office for eighteen months, can keep the most popular pistol in America out of the hands of law-abiding Californians.
The DOJ will appeal. The law will keep working its way through the courts. Meanwhile, every cop in California can still walk into a gun store and buy a Glock.
Every citizen who pays their salary cannot.