On a brisk October morning in 2025, two of America’s most populous states—California and New Jersey—found themselves at the center of a heated legal battle over one of the most recognizable names in the firearms industry: Glock. The debate, which has quickly become a national flashpoint, revolves around the sale and design of semi-automatic pistols that, with the aid of small plastic components, can be converted into fully automatic machine guns. The controversy has drawn in lawmakers, gun rights groups, and attorneys general, all staking their ground on what they believe is at the heart of the Second Amendment and public safety.
On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, a New Jersey Superior Court judge delivered a stinging rebuke to Glock’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state. The suit alleges that Glock knowingly designed and sold pistols that could be easily converted into illegal machine guns with a plastic part—the size of a Lego, no less. As reported by multiple outlets, including the Associated Press and New Jersey Monitor, Attorney General Matt Platkin did not mince words in his reaction. “Today, we won a major victory in our landmark case against Glock, which seeks to hold the company accountable for designing and selling firearms that can be easily converted into illegal machine guns with a plastic component the size of a Lego,” Platkin declared, celebrating the court’s decision as a pivotal moment in the state’s ongoing fight against gun violence.
The lawsuit, first filed in December 2024, is part of what Platkin describes as a “comprehensive and tireless approach to ending the gun violence epidemic.” The court’s ruling, delivered by Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Adubato, was unambiguous. Judge Adubato wrote, “Here … the State sets forth factual claims that Glock ‘deliberately designed’ its handguns to be readily convertible to illegal machine guns, marketed those products, and failed to employ reasonable controls or modify the design despite numerous warnings and increasing harm.” She added that these allegations, if proven, “go beyond general awareness of misuse and approach the conscious and culpable participation in another’s wrongdoing that the Supreme Court requires.”
Glock’s defense, which leaned heavily on constitutional arguments—free speech, state regulation, and Second Amendment protections—was found wanting. Judge Adubato explained, “The Statute regulates the conduct of commercial actors in the gun industry, specifically in their sale and distribution of firearms, not the ability of citizens to possess or use arms for self-defense.” She pointed to well-established legal precedent affirming the constitutionality of imposing “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.”
For New Jersey, the stakes are both legal and symbolic. The state has reported the lowest levels of gun violence in its history for three consecutive years, and Platkin’s office sees the lawsuit as a central tool in maintaining that trend. “These lawsuits are a central component of our comprehensive and tireless approach to ending the gun violence epidemic,” Platkin emphasized, underscoring the broader strategy to hold gun manufacturers accountable for their role in facilitating firearm-related crime.
Meanwhile, across the country in California, a parallel drama is unfolding. On Friday, October 10, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law, which bans the sale of so-called “Glock-style” handguns—specifically those that can be converted into fully automatic weapons using a plastic cruciform trigger bar. This legislative move, as reported by Courthouse News and KCRA, sparked immediate backlash from gun rights advocates. By Monday, October 13, a coalition including the Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association (NRA), and Second Amendment Foundation had filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Southern California, challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, did not hold back in his criticism. “The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own, and California doesn’t get to tell people that their rights end where Governor Newsom’s tyrannical, anti-Second Amendment politics begin,” Combs said in a release. The coalition’s lawsuit argues that the ban targets handguns that are “common and among the most popular in the nation,” specifically highlighting the prevalence of Glock pistols in California.
Assembly Bill 1127, coauthored by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Catherine Stefani, zeroes in on “machinegun-convertible pistols”—handguns that, through the use of 3-D printed components, can be transformed from semiautomatic to fully automatic. The law prohibits the sale of pistols utilizing a cruciform trigger bar, a mechanism found in many Glock models. According to Stefani, “No gun sold in California should be just a screwdriver away from becoming a machine gun. California is sending a clear message: we will always put the safety of our families ahead of the gun industry’s bottom line.” The law will take effect on July 1, 2026.
The NRA, for its part, has called the law “an attempt to further villainize certain categories of firearms and advance California’s gun ban agenda.” In its lawsuit, the group contends that converting such weapons is already illegal under existing state and federal statutes, and that the new law is both redundant and an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights. The NRA notes that Glock pistols are among the most popular handguns in California, and that the law’s impact will be far-reaching for both retailers and gun owners. Poway Weapons & Gear, a San Diego County gun range and retailer, is among the plaintiffs, having sold thousands of the soon-to-be prohibited handguns since 2011.
California officials, however, remain steadfast. In a statement, the attorney general’s press office said, “The California Department of Justice will continue to defend our commonsense gun laws. Beyond that we will respond as appropriate in court.” Assemblymember Stefani’s remarks echoed this commitment to public safety over industry interests.
Legal observers point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that “common arms” cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs in the California case argue that the new law runs afoul of this precedent, while supporters maintain that the state has a right—and indeed a duty—to regulate the commercial sale of firearms that can be so easily and dangerously modified.
As both legal battles move forward, the broader implications for the firearms industry and gun owners nationwide are coming into focus. The cases in New Jersey and California highlight the evolving strategies of state governments seeking to address gun violence and the persistent pushback from gun rights advocates determined to defend what they see as fundamental constitutional liberties. The outcomes could set significant precedents for how far states can go in regulating the design, sale, and liability of firearms in the era of 3-D printing and easily accessible conversion devices.
For now, the courts have spoken—at least in New Jersey—allowing the state’s lawsuit against Glock to proceed. In California, the legal fight is just beginning, with both sides digging in for what promises to be a protracted and closely watched battle. In the end, the question at the heart of these disputes remains: How should America balance the right to bear arms with the imperative to protect public safety in a rapidly changing technological landscape?
