The Department of Justice filed federal lawsuits against both California and Virginia on the same day, challenging firearm restrictions in each state as unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. The coordinated legal action came roughly a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wolford v. Lopez reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is not, as Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche put it, a “second-class right.”
The California suit targets the state’s ban on sales of Glock-style semiautomatic pistols, a restriction that took effect the same day the DOJ filed. The Virginia suit challenges Senate Bill 749, an assault weapons ban signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in May that also went into effect that day. Both governors’ offices defended their laws. Neither appeared ready to back down.
But the federal government isn’t asking permission. And the timing, twin filings, same day, bookended by a Supreme Court decision that strengthened the DOJ’s hand, suggests a Justice Department that views state-level gun restrictions as ripe for constitutional challenge on a scale not seen in years.
California’s new restriction, rooted in Penal Code section 27595, bars firearm dealers from selling certain semiautomatic pistols the state has classified as “machinegun-convertible pistols.” Gov. Newsom signed the underlying legislation in October 2025, and Democrats framed it as a response to so-called “Glock switches”, devices that convert semiautomatic handguns into fully automatic weapons. Those switches are already illegal under federal law.
The DOJ didn’t wait for the ban to age. It filed suit hours after the restriction took effect on July 1, 2026. But the confrontation had been building for days. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon sent a formal warning to Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, giving them until June 30 to enter pre-suit settlement negotiations.
They didn’t respond to the settlement offer. Instead, Bonta issued a letter the day before the filing, rejecting the DOJ’s legal position outright. He called the Unsafe Handgun Act and Penal Code section 27595 “commonsense handgun design safety laws that help to prevent accidental discharges by experienced and non-experienced firearm users as well as the conversion of semiautomatic pistols into deadly automatic firing weapons.”
Bonta added a line that read less like a legal argument and more like a dare:
“If the U.S. Department of Justice decides to file the lawsuit described in your letter, it will not be breaking any new ground.”
Dhillon responded on X with two words: “See you in court.”
The DOJ’s 17-page complaint, as reported by the Washington Examiner, argues the Glock ban is “presumptively unconstitutional” under the Second Amendment and also challenges California’s existing Handgun Roster, a regulatory framework that has effectively prevented new handgun models from being added to legal sales in the state since 2013.
Blanche framed the stakes in plain terms. Just The News reported the acting attorney general’s full statement: “The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”
That’s the core of the federal argument: you cannot outlaw the most widely owned category of handgun in the country and claim you’re respecting the Constitution.
Newsom’s spokeswoman, Diana Crofts-Pelayo, dismissed the lawsuit as politically motivated and said California would not be intimidated. Her statement leaned on a familiar claim:
“Our response is simple, these laws save lives. California has proven that strong, evidence-based gun safety measures can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.”
State officials have credited California’s firearm regulations with helping produce one of the country’s lowest gun death rates. But the DOJ’s complaint doesn’t hinge on policy outcomes. It hinges on constitutional limits, specifically, whether a state can effectively ban an entire class of lawful handguns by reclassifying them as machine-gun components.
California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican from San Diego, welcomed the federal intervention. He told Fox News Digital that Democrats in Sacramento have spent years ignoring the Second Amendment:
“The Second Amendment applies to every American, even those living in California. Unfortunately, California Democrats find that fact inconvenient, so they ignore it in their efforts to erode and ultimately eliminate Californians’ lawful access to firearms.”
Jones added that “banning the most popular firearm on the market is just the latest example” of what he described as decades of constitutional overreach by the state’s Democratic majority.
The Newsom administration has clashed with the federal government on multiple fronts. The DOJ has also pressed California over its voter rolls, creating a pattern of legal confrontation between Sacramento and Washington that now extends to firearms.
The Virginia lawsuit targets Senate Bill 749, sponsored by state Sen. Saddam Salim, a Democrat from Dunn Loring. Spanberger signed the bill in May. It took effect the same day the DOJ filed suit, making it a misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer certain semiautomatic firearms the state classifies as assault weapons.
The DOJ had warned Spanberger months earlier. Dhillon told the governor in April that the Justice Department would sue if she signed the legislation. She signed it anyway.
A spokesperson for Spanberger defended the law, saying the governor “firmly believes that firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong in our communities, near our kids and schools, or on Virginia’s streets.” The spokesperson called SB 749 “commonsense legislation to save lives and protect law enforcement officers, kids, and families from gun violence.”
Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, a Republican from Gate City, saw it differently. He told Fox News Digital that a Virginia court has already blocked the law, and the DOJ’s suit confirms what Republicans said from the start:
“That is where the Richmond Democrats’ agenda has led, into court, on the wrong side of the Constitution. House Republicans said this law could not stand. A Virginia court has already blocked it, and now the Justice Department agrees. It should be repealed.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones for comment. No response was reported.
Newsom’s political positioning on issues beyond guns has also drawn scrutiny. The governor recently faulted fellow Democrats for a “victim mindset” he said fueled California’s homelessness crisis, a rare moment of intra-party candor that sits uneasily alongside his administration’s refusal to negotiate with the DOJ on firearms.
Both lawsuits arrive against a Supreme Court landscape that has shifted markedly in favor of Second Amendment claims. The Court’s ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, issued roughly a week before the DOJ filed, reaffirmed that the right to bear arms cannot be treated as a lesser constitutional protection.
On the same day the DOJ filed its twin suits, the Court also agreed to hear two additional Second Amendment cases next term. Newsmax reported those cases will address whether the Second Amendment protects the right to own AR-15-style rifles, challenging bans in Illinois and Connecticut.
Hannah Hill, executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, told Fox News Digital that Wolford v. Lopez gave the DOJ additional legal support for its filings. She didn’t hold back about the moment:
“The timing is perfect for the Department of Justice to begin to be filing these lawsuits to strike out gun bans all across the country, it’s a really bad time to be a gun grabber.”
The National Association for Gun Rights echoed that sentiment, saying in a statement: “Thank God a small number of committed individuals in DC realize we only have a few years of opportunity to make moves like this, and they’re seizing it.”
The DOJ has been active on multiple legal fronts beyond firearms. The department recently secured a unanimous Supreme Court ruling clearing the way to dismiss Steve Bannon’s contempt conviction, and a federal judge ruled the DOJ can retain 2020 election ballots seized from Fulton County, actions that reflect a department willing to use its authority aggressively across a range of contested legal terrain.
Several questions remain unanswered. The specific courts and judicial districts where the California and Virginia complaints were filed have not been publicly identified in initial reporting. The full case names and docket numbers are not yet available. And the precise holdings of Wolford v. Lopez, beyond the broad characterization that it reaffirmed Second Amendment protections, have not been detailed in the coverage so far.
In Virginia, the situation is further complicated by Kilgore’s assertion that a state court has already blocked SB 749. If that injunction holds, the practical effect of the ban may already be limited before the federal case proceeds. But the DOJ’s suit signals something larger than a single state injunction: it signals a federal government willing to challenge blue-state gun restrictions on constitutional grounds, with the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence at its back.
Dhillon, who serves as assistant attorney general for civil rights, framed the California lawsuit as part of a broader pattern. In a DOJ press release, she said:
“This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms.”
The word “yet another” is doing real work in that sentence. It suggests the DOJ sees these two suits not as one-offs but as the beginning, or continuation, of a systematic effort.
For years, states like California and Virginia have treated the Second Amendment as a speed bump on the road to ever-tighter restrictions. The DOJ just told them it’s a wall. Whether the courts agree will determine how far this goes, but the fight is now fully joined.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.