The National Rifle Association (NRA) is preparing a massive lawsuit in order to stop a draconian gun control bill that was recently adopted by California lawmakers.

Assembly Bill 1127, the so-called “Glock ban,” targets the most popular handgun in America by reclassifying Glocks as “machinegun-convertible pistols.” The legislation, set to take effect on July 1, 2026, expands the state’s definition of a “machinegun” to include pistols that can be equipped with a converter device, effectively targeting Glocks.

The bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of what it terms “machinegun-convertible pistols” when fitted with such converters. Proponents argue this measure addresses potential modifications that could turn semi-automatic handguns into fully automatic ones, though such alterations are already prohibited under federal law.

In response, the NRA issued a notice to California Governor Gavin Newsom on October 12, 2025, stating that a lawsuit is forthcoming to contest the bill’s constitutionality. “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford in the organization’s statement.

He added, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

The NRA’s challenge draws on recent judicial precedents, particularly the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. California has faced multiple setbacks in court over similar laws, including bans on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, often leading to revisions or injunctions.

Commerford emphasized this point, concluding, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

If successful, the lawsuit could invalidate the restrictions before they fully implement, affecting not just California but influencing similar proposals elsewhere.

California Democrats have suffered a number of setbacks on gun control legislation in recent years. In early 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s longstanding “one-gun-a-month” law unconstitutional, overturning a lower court decision and remanding the case for dismissal.

The law, enacted in 2004, restricted handgun purchases to one per 30 days (with limited exceptions) to curb gun trafficking. Plaintiffs, including gun owners and advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, argued it violated the right to acquire arms under the Second Amendment.

The court applied the 2022 Supreme Court framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, finding no historical analogue for such a limit. “California failed even to provide ‘a historical cousin’ for its one-gun-a-month law,” the ruling stated, emphasizing the Amendment’s protection of possessing “multiple arms.

Also in 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a controversial state mandate for background checks on all ammunition purchases, which required in-person verification at points of sale starting in 2019.

[H/T Trending Politics]