Bad ideas and California go together like peanut butter and jelly. That’s especially true when the bad ideas in question are gun control. The only way the state seems to back off on anti-gun policies is if Hollywood objects, and that’s a disturbing trend, to say the least, especially since Hollywood wasn’t likely to object to a ban on Glocks and similar firearms.
So, they passed it. Done is done…or would be under any other Department of Justice.
Unfortunately for Gavin Newsom, Harmeet Dhillon runs the Civil Rights Division, and there’s a whole section that just focuses on Second Amendment issues…like banning the most popular handgun model in the United States.
While the lawsuit is ongoing, though, the law can still be enforced. That’s why the DOJ has asked for an injunction.
After Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta refused to discuss a possible settlement with Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ filed suit in federal court to invalidate the measure and California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” seeking a temporary restraining order against the Glock ban. The DOJ asked the court to prevent the state from enforcing AB1127, the measure that barred the sale and transfer of Glocks.
“Glock handguns are the most popular handguns in America,” the DOJ said in its motion for the injunction. “Yet California Penal Code § 27595(a) (Glock Ban) bans California citizens from acquiring those handguns—and all similar cruciform trigger-bar handguns—from licensed dealers.”
“The Glock Ban is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment and merits immediate enjoinder,” the DOJ continued. “The United States also seeks injunctive relief against the handgun ‘Roster’ that this Court has already found to be likely unconstitutional.”
We’ve already talked about why the rhetoric around so-called Glock switches is horrendously overblown, so there’s no need to rehash it. Of course, that’s true of almost all of the major targets of anti-gun zealots.
California’s handgun roster, in general, really feels to me to be more of a shakedown of gun manufacturers than anything else. While $200 might not be much on a corporate budget annually, over the years, that mounts. Besides, trivial or not, the whole “you’re going to give us money if you want to sell your guns in the largest state by population in the country” feels slimy as hell.
And this, with the whole concept of targeting the most popular handgun in the country, takes it to a whole new level.
Frankly, the judge should issue the injunction, both for the new law and the roster as a whole. The people of California should have the right to buy any firearm available on the market that they can afford, without the state meddling in things and dictating they have features the consumers may well not want.
Will the judge? I honestly can’t say. I think we’re more likely to see the Glock ban held up by an injunction than to see it and the roster, too, but I could well be wrong. If so, that’s good news for Californians. If not, well, any injunction would be better than nothing. Even failing an injunction, I honestly don’t see a way this law stands long-term.
So it’s either good news now, or good news later.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
