Case Summary

California has imposed many unconstitutional requirements upon handguns to limit purchases. By requiring non-standard or non-existent features, the state has effectively created a ban on handguns. As a result, California residents are being unfairly denied their Second Amendment protected rights.  

Mountain States Legal Foundation joined a number of like-minded organizations to file an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court in February 2019. 

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now


What’s Next

This petition for certiorari is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Case History

California considers all handguns unsafe and illegal for sale unless the state tests it and determines the model is “not unsafe.” This practice has resulted in a Handgun Roster listing models that are legal to purchase in the state.  

The state even requires that new firearms models have features that do not exist.  

Since 2013, California has required all new models have three features before it will add them to the Handgun Roster: (1) a chamber-load indicator, (2) a magazine disconnect mechanism, and (3) microstamping technology. The first is a non-standard feature, the second an unpopular one, and the third is a feature that does not currently exist. Gun manufacturers also have no intention of adding microstamping in the future. 

Newer firearms have more advanced safety features and even accommodations for differences in strength and abilities. Yet, all of these advances are unavailable in California. 

These stringent rules violate Second Amendment protections since they effectively create a handgun ban, preventing any new models from being added to the list and freezing technology in 2013.  

Because Californians are being denied their Second Amendment protected rights due to this unconstitutional roster and requirements, Ivan Pena, Roy Vargas, The Second Amendment Foundation and others sued in federal court.  

The District Court ruled in favor of California, as did the Ninth Circuit. Pena et al., now seek Supreme Court review to restore their right to bear arms. 

Case Documents
Explore More

Supreme Court Says No to NYC’s 2nd Amendment Avoidance Scheme

Are New York City officials afraid of the Constitution?

MSLF attorney Cody Wisniewski writes in National Review Online about the scheme New York City officials used to try to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing the most important Second Amendment case in nearly a decade.

Supreme Court Halts NYC’s Flight from Review under Second Amendment

This case arose as a result of NYC’s unconstitutional ban on transporting a licensed handgun outside city limits. For the past six years, NYC has vehemently defended its handgun transportation ban, but only at the last minute sought to avoid Supreme Court review when city officials realized the odds of success weren’t in their favor.

Get the latest updates from MSLF
News Updates