Glock Supports Second Amendment Foundation’s Suit
Attorneys for Glock, Inc. have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Second Amendment Foundation’s case in California, Pena v. Lindley, a lawsuit challenging the state handgun roster requirements that include microstamping and magazine disconnects.
Glock produces some of the most popular pistols in the world, and their guns are carried by law enforcement professionals and legally-armed private citizens across the United States.
“We are proud of Glock for stepping up to the plate,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Glock believes, as do we, that California’s requirements place an undue burden on both consumers and manufacturers.”
According to the brief filed by attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, Calif., Glock pistols are like the majority of semi-auto pistols manufactured today, because they do not include the magazine disconnect. Indeed, the brief notes that “the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies require pistols that do not have a magazine disconnect mechanism.”
Glock pistols, nor any other handgun in common use, can comply with California’s “microstamping” mandate, the brief notes. As a result the newest generation of Glock pistols is not on the California roster, and therefore cannot be sold to private individuals in that state.
“Under the First Amendment,” Gottlieb observed, “California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.”
Both Jaffe and Eastman clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Gottlieb noted. Mr. Eastman has considerable experience in civil and constitutional litigation, and was a candidate for California attorney general in 2010. He is a law professor at Chapman University. Mr. Jaffe also clerked for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of appeals in the District of Columbia. He has litigated in Washington, D.C. and has considerable experience in constitutional challenges.
“Glock definitely has an interest in this case,” Gottlieb said, “and their expertise could be crucial at this point. We’re glad they have chosen to weigh in.”