More Glock Models Rumored for California as DOJ Lawsuit Faces New Developments

The recent addition of the Glock 43XCA to California's handgun roster has sparked speculation that additional Glock models could soon become available in the state. At the same time, new court filings in United States v. California could influence the federal government's ongoing challenge to California's handgun roster and Assembly Bill 1127.

While the Glock 43XCA's roster approval is confirmed, reports suggesting that the Glock 17, Glock 19, and Glock 45 will follow remain unverified.

Rumors of Three Additional Glock Models

The speculation began with an October 6 social media post from North County Shooting Center in San Marcos, California. The business indicated that three additional Glock models were expected but stated that specific SKUs and product details were still pending.

The original announcement did not identify which models were coming. After the post circulated on Reddit and other platforms, speculation began focusing on the Glock 17, Glock 19, and Glock 45. However, there has been no confirmed announcement identifying these models or establishing when they might become available.

The Glock 43XCA's addition is particularly significant because it represents a California-specific version designed to satisfy the state's handgun roster requirements, including a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Whether Glock intends to introduce additional California-compliant models remains uncertain.

California Introduces New Evidence in Federal Lawsuit

Meanwhile, the federal lawsuit United States v. California continues to challenge California's handgun roster and AB 1127, legislation addressing certain semiautomatic pistols.

On September 30, California submitted a notice of new evidence highlighting recent additions to the state's handgun roster. According to the filing described in the report, 34 handgun models had been added to the roster since September 3, with 31 featuring magazine disconnect mechanisms and loaded chamber indicators. California also specifically referenced the addition of the Glock 43XCA.

The state's filing appears intended to demonstrate that manufacturers can continue introducing compliant handguns despite the challenged regulations. This evidence could become relevant as the court considers the federal government's request to block enforcement of certain restrictions. However, the addition of compliant firearms does not automatically resolve the constitutional questions raised by the lawsuit.

Court Hearing Delayed Until January

Another development involves the scheduling of proceedings in United States v. California.

A hearing previously expected in October has reportedly been moved to January 2027. The reason for the change has not been confirmed in the supplied report, although the timing follows California's submission of additional evidence. The delay means the federal government's challenge to the roster and AB 1127 will remain unresolved for at least several more months.

What Comes Next for California Gun Owners?

Two important questions remain unanswered.

First, whether Glock will officially introduce additional California-compliant pistols beyond the 43XCA. Until specific models are confirmed through manufacturer announcements or official roster listings, reports identifying the Glock 17, 19, and 45 should be treated as speculation.

Second, whether California's recent roster additions will affect the outcome of United States v. California.

The federal government continues to challenge the state's firearm restrictions, while California is presenting evidence that manufacturers can comply with its regulatory requirements. The addition of the Glock 43XCA represents a notable development for California's handgun market, but the broader legal battle over the roster and AB 1127 remains unresolved.

Ninth Circuit Rejects California's Attempt to Expand Federal Ghost Gun Regulations

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered another setback to California's efforts to tighten federal firearm regulations, unanimously denying the state's request to rehear a lawsuit challenging the ATF's existing ghost gun rule.

The decision leaves in place an earlier appellate ruling that California lacked legal standing to pursue the challenge, preventing the state from using this lawsuit to compel the federal government to adopt stricter firearm regulations.

California Challenges the ATF's Ghost Gun Rule

The lawsuit originated from California's dissatisfaction with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations addressing privately made firearms, commonly referred to as ghost guns. Although the ATF expanded federal regulations during the previous administration, California argued that those rules did not go far enough. The state sought additional restrictions that would more closely align federal requirements with California's own firearm laws.

California initially prevailed at the federal district court level. However, the ATF appealed, bringing the dispute before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circuit Rules California Lacked Standing

On August 21, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled against California, concluding that the state had failed to establish the legal standing necessary to pursue its claims. Rather than deciding whether the ATF's regulations should be more restrictive, the court determined that California had not sufficiently demonstrated the legal injury required to maintain the lawsuit.

On October 5, California requested a panel rehearing, arguing that updated statistics and additional evidence supported its claim that the existing federal regulations caused harm to the state. The same three-judge panel subsequently unanimously denied California's rehearing request, leaving its original decision intact.

What the Decision Means for Federal Firearm Regulations

The ruling is significant because California's lawsuit sought changes to federal regulations that could have affected firearm owners, manufacturers, and dealers throughout the United States. Had California succeeded in compelling the ATF to strengthen its rule, the resulting federal requirements could have extended beyond California's borders.

However, the Ninth Circuit's decision was based on standing rather than the underlying constitutionality or merits of the ATF's ghost gun regulations. The ruling does not invalidate California's existing firearm laws or eliminate the federal ghost gun rule. Instead, it prevents this particular lawsuit from moving forward on the legal grounds presented.

Could California Continue the Legal Fight?

California may still have options, including seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court or pursuing new litigation supported by different legal arguments and evidence. Neither outcome is guaranteed, and any additional litigation could require substantial time before reaching a final resolution.

For now, the Ninth Circuit's refusal to rehear the case represents a significant procedural victory for the ATF's position in this litigation and a setback for California's attempt to influence federal firearm policy.

The broader significance is that states seeking to change nationwide firearm regulations must first demonstrate that they have the legal standing necessary to challenge federal agency decisions.

Supreme Court to Consider 13 Second Amendment Cases in First Conference of New Term

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to consider at least 13 Second Amendment-related petitions during its October 9 conference, potentially opening the door to new rulings on firearm possession restrictions, concealed carry laws, and the constitutional rights of individuals with prior felony convictions.

The conference follows the Court's September 28 long conference, which resulted in the denial of numerous Second Amendment petitions. With a new term underway, attention is turning to whether the justices will agree to review additional challenges to federal and state firearm laws.

A significant portion of the petitions involve 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal law generally prohibiting firearm possession by individuals convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. Cases including Jefferson v. United States, Tardif v. United States, Cook v. United States, and Murray v. United States question whether permanent firearm prohibitions are consistent with the Second Amendment and the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Other petitions, including Johnson v. United States, Higgins v. United States, and Jones v. United States, focus on whether individuals with prior convictions should be permitted to challenge these restrictions based on their personal circumstances.

These cases raise an important constitutional question: Can the government permanently prohibit firearm possession based solely on a prior felony conviction, regardless of whether the offense involved violence?

Several petitions address 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals classified as unlawful users of or addicted to controlled substances. Zapata v. United States, Torrison v. United States, and Leiva v. United States challenge aspects of these restrictions, including whether the government has sufficient historical justification for disarming individuals based on controlled substance use. One challenge also questions whether the term "unlawful user" is sufficiently clear to establish who is legally prohibited from possessing firearms.

These cases could provide further guidance on how the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi apply to firearm restrictions involving prohibited persons.

Not all of the petitions involve prohibited-person laws. Williams v. Illinois raises questions about concealed carry licensing and whether criminal penalties associated with shall-issue permit systems must satisfy the historical analysis established in Bruen. Meanwhile, Gaines v. United States addresses another significant issue: which historical firearm laws courts may rely upon when evaluating modern restrictions, including federal, state, colonial, and local laws.

A Supreme Court decision clarifying that question could influence how lower courts evaluate Second Amendment challenges nationwide.

During the October 9 conference, the justices may agree to hear a case, deny review, or reschedule a petition for further consideration. The Court's next orders list is expected on October 13, when the public may learn how these petitions were handled. Although the Supreme Court has been reluctant to accept many prohibited-person challenges, several of the pending petitions raise questions that remain unsettled across federal courts. The Court is also preparing for other major Second Amendment proceedings involving restrictions on semiautomatic firearms, while additional challenges to magazine capacity laws remain pending.

The October 9 conference could become another important step in defining the constitutional limits of firearm restrictions, particularly whether lifetime disarmament is justified for individuals whose prior convictions did not involve violence.

Whether the justices accept any of these petitions remains uncertain, but the issues they raise will continue to shape Second Amendment litigation across the country.

Supreme Court Clarifies When Individuals Can Be Disarmed Under the Second Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi continues to play an important role in defining the constitutional limits of firearm restrictions. In an 8–1 ruling, the Court upheld a federal law temporarily prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders, while emphasizing the importance of judicial findings and historical precedent.

The Supreme Court recently released audio of Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the decision from the bench, providing additional attention to the Court's reasoning and its implications for Second Amendment rights.

The case centered on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which restricts firearm possession by individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders. Zackey Rahimi had been placed under a restraining order after a Texas court determined that he posed a credible threat to the physical safety of another person. Following a subsequent investigation in which firearms were discovered, Rahimi was charged with violating the federal prohibition.

The Fifth Circuit initially ruled that the restriction violated the Second Amendment. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat of physical violence may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court relied on two historical legal traditions to support its decision.

The first involved surety laws, which allowed courts to require individuals who threatened others to post a financial bond guaranteeing peaceful behavior. These laws were intended to prevent violence before it occurred.

The second involved historical going-armed laws, which punished individuals who carried dangerous weapons in a manner that threatened or terrorized others. Violations could result in imprisonment or forfeiture of weapons.

Together, these historical examples provided the foundation for the Court's conclusion that temporary firearm restrictions can be constitutional when a court has determined that an individual presents a credible threat to another person's physical safety.

One of the most significant aspects of Rahimi is the Court's emphasis on the circumstances justifying disarmament. Rather than establishing a broad rule allowing firearm restrictions based solely on government concerns about public safety, the decision focused on individuals who had been judicially determined to pose a credible threat of physical violence.

The ruling also reinforced the historical analysis established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that framework, modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, although historical laws do not need to be identical to modern restrictions. The Court's reasoning could influence future challenges involving prohibited persons, firearm possession restrictions and the circumstances under which individuals may lose their ability to legally possess firearms.

Although Rahimi upheld a federal firearm restriction, the decision also established important limits on the reasoning used to justify that restriction. The Court concluded that a judicial finding of a credible threat of physical violence provides historical grounds for temporary disarmament. It did not resolve every question concerning firearm prohibitions or establish that all restrictions on particular categories of individuals are constitutional.

As additional Second Amendment cases move through the federal courts, United States v. Rahimi will remain an important precedent in determining how courts balance the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with laws intended to prevent violent conduct.

Supreme Court Denies Dozens of Second Amendment Cases Following Long Conference

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a large group of Second Amendment cases considered during its end-of-summer “long conference,” closing the door on several firearm-related challenges that had been awaiting action from the Court.

Approximately 57 Second Amendment-related petitions were reportedly considered during the September 28 conference. The cases covered a wide range of issues, including prohibited-person laws, sensitive-place restrictions, concealed carry reciprocity and whether certain regulated firearms receive Second Amendment protection.

Among the notable cases was Johnson v. Jacobson, which involved interstate concealed carry reciprocity. The petition presented an opportunity to address whether a state can deny non-residents the ability to carry based on its recognition—or lack of recognition—of permits issued by other states.

Another case highlighted was Shephard v. United States, which raised the question of whether short-barreled shotguns qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

Following the conference, however, the Supreme Court denied the Second Amendment petitions discussed in the report rather than granting review, sending them back to a lower court through a GVR order, or rescheduling them for another conference. For cases that reached the Supreme Court following a final judgment, including Johnson v. Jacobson, the denial effectively brings that particular case to an end.

A denial of certiorari does not establish Supreme Court precedent or mean that the justices agree with the lower court's decision. It simply means the Court has declined to review that particular case. As a result, existing lower-court decisions remain in place, including disagreements between federal circuits where applicable.

Despite the large number of denials, several significant Second Amendment cases remain before the Supreme Court or are expected to receive further consideration. The report points to pending firearm-related petitions as well as Viramontes and Grant, two cases already accepted by the Court and scheduled for argument on December 2.

Those cases could provide the Court with another opportunity to clarify how its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and subsequent Second Amendment cases should be applied by lower courts.

The latest orders therefore represent a setback for several individual Second Amendment challenges, but they do not mark the end of firearm litigation at the Supreme Court. With additional petitions still pending and major cases already scheduled for argument, the Court's 2026 term could still produce significant developments in Second Amendment law.

New Lawsuit Challenges Colorado Carry Restrictions for Non-Residents

A new federal lawsuit is challenging Colorado’s firearm carry laws on behalf of non-residents who may be left without any legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense while visiting Denver.

The case, Hoffman v. City of Denver, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Gene Hoffman and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The lawsuit argues that preventing otherwise qualified non-residents from carrying firearms in public violates the Second Amendment.

The challenge focuses on the interaction between Colorado’s concealed carry system and Denver’s prohibition on open carry. Colorado generally allows open carry, but Denver prohibits it. At the same time, Colorado's recognition of concealed carry permits from other states depends on reciprocity. Residents of states without reciprocity—including California—can therefore face significant restrictions when attempting to legally carry in Colorado.

Hoffman is a California resident who travels to Denver. According to the lawsuit, he cannot openly carry because Denver prohibits open carry, while his California residency prevents him from obtaining the Colorado concealed carry authorization necessary under the circumstances described in the complaint. The result, plaintiffs argue, is effectively a complete prohibition on his ability to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while in Denver.

The lawsuit relies heavily on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized an individual's Second and Fourteenth Amendment right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense. The complaint argues that Bruen did not limit that constitutional protection to a person's state of residence.

The plaintiffs also point to historical firearm laws involving travelers. According to the complaint, several colonies required travelers to carry arms for protection, while later laws in states including Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama contained traveler exceptions to restrictions that otherwise prohibited concealed carry. The lawsuit presents that history as evidence against a historical tradition of completely denying non-residents the ability to carry firearms.

The case could have implications beyond Colorado. A successful challenge could contribute to a developing body of Second Amendment precedent addressing whether states can condition a visitor's ability to carry a firearm on residency or reciprocity agreements with that person's home state.

For now, Hoffman v. City of Denver is at the beginning of the federal court process. But the central question is significant: Can a state and local government combine their laws in a way that leaves an otherwise qualified visitor with no legal method of carrying a firearm in public for self-defense?

Glock 43XCA Added to California Handgun Roster

A new Glock 43XCA has been added to California’s handgun roster, marking a significant development for California gun owners and raising questions about how Glock modified the popular 43X to comply with the state’s increasingly complex handgun requirements.

Unlike the Gen 3 Glock models that remained on the roster under older requirements, the newly listed handgun is specifically identified as the 43XCA, indicating a California-specific variant. Because it is a new roster submission, the pistol had to satisfy current requirements rather than relying on the grandfathered status that allowed earlier Glock models to remain available.

Based on California’s current roster requirements, the 43XCA will include both a magazine disconnect mechanism and a loaded chamber indicator. The loaded chamber indicator must meet specific visibility requirements established by the state, meaning the California model will differ mechanically and potentially visually from a standard Glock 43X. Exactly how Glock incorporated these features remains unknown because detailed specifications, photographs and an owner's manual had not yet been released at the time of the report.

Another major question involves AB 1127, legislation aimed at certain semiautomatic pistols that can be readily converted into machine guns using conversion devices. Although frequently characterized as a “Glock ban,” the law does not prohibit Glock by name. Instead, it establishes criteria involving specific design characteristics and whether a pistol can be readily converted.

The 43XCA's addition to the roster therefore raises questions about whether Glock made additional internal or external changes to the pistol to address those requirements. At this point, however, any explanation of exactly what Glock changed remains speculative. The transcript notes that more information will be needed from Glock, an owner's manual or hands-on examination of the production pistol before those differences can be confirmed.

What is confirmed is that California will receive a 43X variant specifically designed for the state market. The development is particularly notable because Glock had not traditionally produced California-specific models to meet the modern roster requirements, instead relying on its grandfathered Gen 3 lineup.

The remaining question is availability. Although the Glock 43XCA is now listed on California’s roster, no confirmed release date or retail availability was provided in the source. Until Glock releases additional specifications, California buyers will have to wait to see exactly how the 43XCA differs from the standard model—and whether additional California-specific Glock models could follow.

Federal Judge Questions New York Sensitive Place Gun Laws While Bound by Second Circuit Precedent

A federal judge has issued a significant new ruling in Antonyuk v. James, the ongoing challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and its restrictions on carrying firearms in locations designated as “sensitive places.”

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the Northern District of New York largely remained bound by existing Second Circuit precedent, which has upheld restrictions on concealed carry in locations including public parks, establishments serving alcohol, theaters and zoos. As a district court judge, Suddaby explained that he must follow controlling Second Circuit precedent even where he questions its continued viability. The Second Circuit’s earlier decision did, in fact, leave several of these restrictions in place.

However, the decision did provide a victory for the plaintiffs regarding airports. The court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment challenge to New York’s restriction as applied to airports, outside secured areas such as TSA-controlled zones.

The most notable portion of the ruling may be Judge Suddaby’s discussion of the future of the Second Circuit’s sensitive-place precedent. He wrote that it is “conceivable or even likely” that certain Second Circuit rulings could eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in light of subsequent Second Amendment decisions.

Suddaby also questioned whether New York’s extensive collection of sensitive-place restrictions can be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He noted that when numerous individual restrictions are considered together, they can create a system in which concealed carry is prohibited across large portions of the state, potentially undermining the general right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense recognized in Bruen.

The court additionally raised concerns about the historical evidence used to support modern sensitive-place restrictions, including reliance on territorial laws and regulations from periods far removed from the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Nevertheless, Suddaby concluded that existing Second Circuit precedent remains binding unless it is overturned or sufficiently undermined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

For now, many of New York’s sensitive-place restrictions remain in effect. But the ruling highlights an increasingly important question in Second Amendment litigation: how broadly can states designate locations as gun-free “sensitive places” without effectively eliminating the right to carry a firearm during ordinary public life?

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges ATF Involvement in Forced Reset Trigger Patent Case

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is questioning the ATF’s involvement in private patent litigation involving Rare Breed Triggers and competing forced reset trigger (FRT) products. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the Justice Department to explain the legal and factual basis for the agency’s position.

The controversy stems from a DOJ statement of interest filed on behalf of the ATF in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The underlying lawsuit involves allegations that competing products infringe patents held by Rare Breed Triggers and related intellectual property owners.

SAF says it is not taking a position on the patent dispute itself. Instead, its concern centers on the federal government’s justification for becoming involved. According to the letter, the ATF stated that it has an “interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs” while arguing that the public-interest factor in the patent case weighs heavily in Rare Breed’s favor.

That statement prompted SAF to ask why the ATF wants to limit FRT distribution, why the agency appears to be supporting one marketplace competitor over others, how Rare Breed’s products differ mechanically from competing triggers and what authority supports the government’s position.

The issue is particularly significant because the federal government previously settled major litigation involving forced reset triggers in May 2025. SAF argues that the government’s current position appears inconsistent with a settlement allowing Rare Breed products to be sold while simultaneously claiming a public-policy interest in limiting competing products with allegedly similar functionality.

SAF also points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, where the Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns under the existing federal definition. SAF argues that the statutory definition focuses on whether a firearm fires more than one shot automatically through a single function of the trigger—not whether a device produces what the ATF describes as a “near automatic rate.”

The dispute could ultimately have implications beyond forced reset triggers. SAF warns that federal agencies intervening in private intellectual property disputes to advance separate regulatory objectives could influence competition, product availability and consumer choice without going through traditional rulemaking or enforcement processes.

SAF is now asking Attorney General Blanche to review the ATF’s involvement and clarify the authority behind its position. The central question remains: If forced reset triggers are lawful under the federal statutory definition, what authority gives the ATF an interest in limiting their sale and distribution?

California Governor Signs 10 New Gun Laws, Including Major Changes to Firearm Safety Certificate Requirements

California has enacted 10 new firearm-related bills covering everything from firearm-owner data and prohibited persons to storage programs, protective orders, emerging technology and firearm training requirements. The new laws will take effect in stages, with provisions beginning in 2027 and additional requirements continuing through 2029.

The bills signed include AB 1743, AB 1753, AB 1943, AB 1974, AB 2047, AB 2339, AB 2378, AB 2636, SB 948 and SB 1220. Collectively, they address firearm-owner information, ammunition relinquishment under certain protective orders, voluntary firearm storage, 3D-printing technology, prohibited persons, violence-prevention programs and firearm acquisition requirements.

Among the most significant changes for California firearm owners is SB 948, which expands the requirements associated with obtaining a Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC).

Beginning January 1, 2029, applicants will generally be required to complete a new training course within the previous year before obtaining an FSC. The course must be at least four hours long, include live-fire training and cover topics established by the California Department of Justice. Training must also be conducted by a DOJ-certified instructor, and applicants will be required to demonstrate safe firearm handling and basic proficiency at a shooting range.

There are exceptions for individuals who already possess a valid California CCW permit or who completed qualifying initial or renewal CCW training within the previous three years.

New California residents will also face additional requirements. SB 948 changes the deadline for reporting firearms brought into the state from 60 days to 180 days. Beginning January 1, 2028, new residents will also be required to certify to the California DOJ that they possess a valid FSC or qualify for an exemption. Those subject to the reporting requirement generally must obtain the required FSC within the 180-day period.

The package represents another substantial expansion of California's firearm regulations. Because the provisions are being phased in over several years, firearm owners, dealers and new residents will need to pay close attention to the different effective dates as the requirements begin taking effect between 2027 and 2029.