The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been a bright spot in President Trump's second administration. Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon has been on a rampage against blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws, and while there are still mountains of work to be done, and likely still will be after Trump leaves office, there are still positive gains being made.
In California, the worst offender of attacking the right to keep and bear arms, it's clear they would rather get sued than stop enforcing an idiotic rule.
And by "it's clear," I mean that state Attorney General Rob Bonta pretty much said that, and Dhillon almost sounds like she welcomes it.
See y’all in court! 🤨 pic.twitter.com/vCQVbIMeEy
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 30, 2026
In essence, Bonta is ready to go to court over the state's Glock ban, where a gun that was created with no intention of being converted into anything, but can be due to a third-party designed device that was illegal in the United States at the federal level before the paint was dry on it, should be prohibited because the law prohibiting anyone from selling such a device doesn't work.
I'd ask someone to make it make sense, but lobotomies sound painful, and I don't see any other method possible.
Of course, the upcoming lawsuit isn't just about Glocks. It's also about the state's handgun roster.
For those unfamiliar with the roster, and a lot of you likely never cared that much about it, it's basically a list of guns that are approved for purchase in California. If you want a firearm that is perfect for you, unless it's on the roster, you can't purchase it anywhere in the state lawfully. The roster, which is treated like a safety measure, requires guns to have various features that many people don't want, such as loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects. In other words, it has to have something to show you that there is a round in the chamber, but there also has to be something that makes it so the gun doesn't fire if a magazine is removed.
Now, loaded chamber indicators are a take it or leave it thing for me, but I don't want a magazine disconnect. If I find myself grappling with an attacker, I don't want to risk not being able to use the round in the chamber if, for some reason, the magazine is ejected in the scuffle.
Granted, other people want it specifically so that if there is a chance they'll lose their weapon, they can drop the magazine and render it useless to the attacker.
The point is, though, this is something the market should decide, not California, and that's part of why California was warned to back down, only to refuse to do so. By deciding what features a gun has to have in order to be considered for the roster. Then, a manufacturer has to submit the gun to the state for consideration, then pay $200 to get it added to the roster, followed by another $200 per year just to keep it there. For some manufacturers, it's just not worth it, especially if they're not interested in putting in things like magazine disconnects.
So yeah, they're going to get sued, because the Glock ban just raised even more awareness of how terrible the laws are there regarding handguns, and they deserve to get sued into oblivion over this.
