A California law that bans firearm dealers from selling certain Glocks and other semiautomatic pistols that can be converted into machineguns can remain in place for now, a federal judge said.

Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani of the US District Court for the Central District of California on Thursday rejected the Justice Department’s bid to temporarily halt enforcement of California’s law. The judge said she denied the request because DOJ’s lawsuit focuses on a novel theory that 34 U.S.C. § 12601 provides the federal government authority to challenge the constitutionality of the state law.

The federal statute makes it unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of violating the US Constitution. The law was enacted in response to the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers, and has historically been used by the federal government to combat systemic police misconduct and investigate law enforcement agencies.

The DOJ has asserted the same theory in several lawsuits challenging state and local firearm restrictions in Virginia, Colorado, and Washington, DC, since last December. But no court has concluded whether the federal government has authority under Section 12601 to facially challenge a state gun law, Almadani said.

DOJ didn’t identify a previous time when it brought a Section 12601 claim for a violation of the Second Amendment, and there’s no historical precedent for using the statute to argue that officers engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct by enforcing a state gun law. California’s handgun law “is not a law enforcement policy but rather a law passed by the California legislature that proscribes private conduct,” Almadani said.

The judge also rejected the federal government’s argument that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the quick injunctive relief. The law doesn’t bar the possession of handguns that can be converted to machineguns and only bans firearm dealers from selling them. It also contains several exceptions that allow for individuals to continue acquiring the covered firearms, Almadani said.

The case is United States v. California, C.D. Cal., No. 8:26-cv-01697, 7/9/26.