California’s controversial AB 127, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, has triggered one of the most significant firearm lawsuits in recent years. Just days after the bill was signed, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the NRA filed James v. Bonta, challenging what critics describe as an unconstitutional ban on the most popular pistols in America—commonly referred to as the “Glock ban.”

AB 127 targets a specific internal component used in many modern pistols, effectively removing entire product lines from California’s handgun roster. The law was designed to roll out in phases, with importation restrictions taking effect first, followed by complete removal from the roster on July 1. Law enforcement exemptions remain in place, leaving millions of California residents impacted by the ban.

Since the lawsuit was filed, most activity has been procedural. In January, the court issued a scheduling order laying out the roadmap for the case, with key dates extending through late 2026 and beyond. This confirms what many expected: the case will move slowly, likely stretching into 2027 and eventually facing review by the Ninth Circuit.

Complicating matters further, Glock discontinued its roster-approved models before key deadlines, raising questions about how the case will proceed when the affected firearms are no longer in production. Despite these challenges, the lawsuit is officially moving forward, even if meaningful relief remains far off.

For now, the fight over California’s handgun roster and AB 127 continues. While immediate injunctions appear unlikely, related cases challenging the roster itself may ultimately determine the fate of California’s sweeping handgun restrictions.