Contra Costa County, California prohibits the use of firearms equipped with red dot sights and/or weapon mounted lights for permitted concealed carry. It likewise prohibits all single action only firearms, including the venerable 1911 (and subsequently the 2011) platform. Both firearms equiped with electronic sights like red dots, as well as those equipped with flashlights, are in common use for self-defense all over the country. So too, are single action only platform firearms like 1911’s, which have been amongst the most popular firearms in the country for lawful uses, including self-defense for over a century. Contra Costa County simply does not have the authority to prohibit its residents from using these arms for lawful – and constiutionally protected – self-defense.
On June, 17, 2026, Second Amendment Foundation, joined by two Contra Costa residents, filed suit, alleging Contra Costa’s policies violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Case Team: Kostas Moros, John W. Dillon
Recent Docket Activity
July 7th, 2026
CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 10/20/2026. Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/27/2026 at 02:00 PM - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at [email protected] no later than 10/26/2026 at 2:00PM PST.Civ LR 77-3. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. 11 )
July 6th, 2026
CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice.
July 6th, 2026
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned using a proportionate, random and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Jon S. Tigar. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore no longer assigned to the case. Counsel are instructed that all future filings shall bear the updated judicial initials immediately after the case number. Counsel are reminded to verify the location of the judge on the court website. All hearing and trial dates presently scheduled are vacated. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. Motions must be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned, but the renoticing of the hearing does not affect the prior briefing schedule. Other deadlines such as those for ADR compliance and discovery cutoff also remain unchanged. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Mark B. Busby Clerk, United States District Court
July 1st, 2026
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Andrew Moore, Second Amendment Foundation , Inc., James Treuel..
