BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is hailing a new lawsuit filed in federal court in California, challenging Assembly Bill 1127, signed recently by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, which bans popular—and commonly used—Glock pistols in the state.
While CCRKBA is not a plaintiff in the new legal action, we are watching it closely because the court has already held that several provisions of the UHA likely violate the Second Amendment. That case is known as Renna v. Bonta, filed originally in November 2020 by CCRKBA and several others, noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. The Renna case challenged California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” (UHA).
The new case was filed Monday by the Second Amendment Foundation—CCRKBA’s sister organization—along with the National Rifle Association and Firearms Policy Coalition, all three parties to the earlier legal action, plus one firearms retailer and two private citizens. The case is known as Jaymes v. Bonta, and was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
“The court has already held that several provisions of the UHA likely violate the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb observed, “but instead of taking a hint from the court, Gov. Newsom has doubled down because of what can best be described as a case of handgun derangement syndrome by signing this new legislation. This new ban is flagrantly unconstitutional, and Newsom must know it.”
Gottlieb said Democrats in Sacramento evidently “didn’t get the memo” from the U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, “so they passed AB 1127 and Newsom quickly signed it into law.” The CCRKBA chairman said Newsom and Democrats in the legislature appear determined to play a game of “one-upmanship” with the courts and the constitution.
“This may be a game for Newsom and the Democrats in Sacramento,” Gottlieb stated, “but defending the Second Amendment rights of California gun owners is not a game. This is not some kind of sporting match for Newsom’s amusement. You don’t fight crime by restricting the rights of peaceable, law-abiding citizens. We’re going to closely monitor this legal action, and based on previous results, we expect the court to act decisively.”