Case: Jaymes v. Bonta
3:25-cv-02711 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed Date: Oct. 13, 2025
Closed Date: April 13, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case alleged that California Penal Code § 27595(a), which bans the sale, transfer, or delivery of any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, violated the second amendment because these handguns were commonly used.
On October 13, 2025, Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range (PWGG), National Rifle Association of America (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, and two named individuals filed this suit alleging that the California Penal Code § 27595(a), which bans the sale or transfer of semiautomatic handguns with a cruciform trigger bar, such as Glock and Glock-style handguns , is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs brought this case against the California Attorney General. The case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and the case was initially assigned to Judge John A. Houston. According to the complaint, California Penal Code §27595(a) “effectively close[d] the door on traditional commercial sales of” these types of handguns. The plaintiffs alleged that the provision violated the second amendment because semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are “in common use”, which means they are protected under the Second Amendment as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627, 629 (2008). The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief requiring that the Penal Code § 27595(a) be deemed unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and thus not be enforced. The plaintiffs also requested they be awarded the costs of this action, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other legal and equitable relief as was just and appropriate.
On October 13, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases, informing the court of another action within the same District, Renna v Bonta, Case No. 3:20-cv-2190-DMS-DEB. The plaintiffs in Renna were challenging the ban of handguns imposed through enforcement of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. The court in Renna issued a preliminary injunction holding that these restrictions are likely unconstitutional because handguns are “in common use.” The preliminary injunction in Renna remained on appeal before the Ninth Circuit at the time of the notice. Five of the six plaintiffs in this case were plaintiffs in Renna, and the defendant in this case is one of two defendants in Renna. The notice requested that the cases be assigned to the same district judge to ensure the cases reached consistent results.
On October 16, 2025, the case was reassigned to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
On October 21, 2025, the defendant objected to the notice of related cases, arguing that this case and Renna are not sufficiently related to justify assigning the same judge to these two cases.
On March 27, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings because the parties were in discussions that could lead to the case being resolved. On the same day, the motion was granted. Further proceedings in the matter were stayed until further order of the court.
On April 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
On April 13, 2026, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Summary Authors
Lauren Fuller (10/9/2026)
Madilynn O'Hara (1/6/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71642999/parties/jaymes-v-bonta/
Curiel, Gonzalo Paul (California)
Benbrook, Bradley A. (California)
Bergstrom, William V. (California)
Duvernay, Stephen M. (California)
Boutin, Gabrielle D. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71642999/jaymes-v-bonta/
Last updated Oct. 22, 2026, 5:51 a.m.
Docket for: Jaymes v. Bonta
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 13, 2025
Closing Date: April 13, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are two named individuals who are potential buyers of the guns at issue, an operator of a firearms retailer, shooting range, and training facility in California, two nonprofit membership organizations and a nonprofit educational foundation.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
California Office of the Attorney General
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)
Other Dockets:
Southern District of California 3:25-cv-02711
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Jaymes v. Bonta, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47597/ (last updated 1/6/2026).