Attorneys with the Justice Department on Wednesday filed a notice with a federal judge in California highlighting a ruling that blocked a Glock ban in Connecticut, as the Trump administration presses its legal challenge against California’s own restrictions on the popular handguns.
The DOJ filed suit in federal court in July seeking to strike down California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” and its Glock ban, arguing the measures violate the Second Amendment rights of the state’s residents. The lawsuit came after Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta refused to discuss a possible settlement with Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon.
After a federal judge in Connecticut put a similar Glock ban on hold, attorneys with the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section notified U.S. District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani of the decision. Almadani, a Biden appointee, sits in the Central District of California.
In the filing, DOJ attorneys argued the Connecticut ruling is directly relevant to the case.
“This decision is relevant to the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff in this case as it demonstrates that a sister federal district court has reviewed and granted a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a statute that bans the sale of handguns with cruciform trigger bars (commonly known as Glock bans),” the filing says.
The DOJ also laid out the Connecticut court’s reasoning.
“The court first analyzed whether the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits of their claims, and concluded that they would because Glock bans are presumptively unconstitutional under Bruen step one and there was no historical analogue to rebut that presumption,” the filing states.
California, meanwhile, filed its own notice with Judge Almadani on Tuesday, stating it had approved a version of the Glock 43.
According to that filing, the California Department of Justice’s Handgun Roster lists a new model, the Glock 43X CA, without a plus symbol next to its name. The filing says the absence of that symbol indicates the model does not fall under the state’s definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol under California Penal Code section 16885. As a result, the filing says, the model is not subject to the state’s prohibition on firearms dealers selling, transferring or delivering machinegun-convertible pistols.
The legal battle stems from AB1127, which Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in October 2025. The measure was the first state law to ban Glocks, doing so by labeling them as “machine gun convertible pistols.”
Since then, other Democrat-led states have followed California’s lead. Maryland, Connecticut and New York have all imposed similar bans, each of which has been challenged in court.
The Connecticut ruling marks a setback for those efforts, with a federal judge finding that the challengers were likely to win on the merits because such bans are presumptively unconstitutional and lack a historical analogue.
Under current federal law, possessing or manufacturing fully automatic firearms is prohibited unless the firearm is registered or approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The DOJ’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the California case remains pending before Judge Almadani.
[READ MORE: Trump Drives Motorcade 100 Miles After Advisers Said Flying Was Too Dangerous]
