SAN DIEGO – Byrna Technologies sued California and Gov. Gavin Newsom in federal court Wednesday, saying state law unlawfully prevents the company from selling its nonlethal pepper projectile launchers and their ammunition to residents, court filings show.
The complaint argues the state’s application of a prohibition on “tear gas” to Byrna’s products violates the Second Amendment and forces Californians toward lethal firearms instead of less-lethal alternatives, creating constitutional and public-safety concerns. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to a Fox News report and court records.
Why the case matters
The litigation tests how courts will apply recent Supreme Court precedent to modern, nonlethal self-defense devices and how regulators may classify chemical irritants when they are delivered by a projectile. The dispute could influence whether states can broadly limit access to nonlethal weapons that manufacturers and some public-safety advocates say reduce the risk of fatal encounters.
It also fits into a broader set of challenges over weapon regulation and self-defense rights now playing out across the country, an issue covered by our Justice Coverage and by constitutional litigation in several jurisdictions.
Background
Byrna makes handheld launchers that fire small projectiles filled with a chemical irritant intended to incapacitate temporarily, the complaint says. The company says state regulators have treated those projectiles as falling within California’s prohibition on tear gas and similar chemical agents, effectively blocking retail sales in the state.
The filings say Byrna sold more than 750,000 units nationwide in recent years, a figure the company attributes to its own sales records. The complaint asks the court to declare California’s application of the tear gas ban unconstitutional as applied to Byrna’s products and to enjoin enforcement that prevents sales in the state.
Legal claims in the suit
Byrna argues that modern self-defense devices are protected by the Second Amendment and cites Supreme Court decisions it says support that contention, including District of Columbia v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts. Heller recognized an individual right to possess arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home, and Caetano addressed protection for stun guns as modern self-defense technology.
The complaint also frames the dispute against the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires courts to evaluate firearms restrictions against the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Byrna asks the court to find that the tear gas prohibition, as applied to its launchers, fails that historical test or is otherwise inconsistent with constitutional protections for self-defense devices.
Details from court filings and public records
- The company says the launchers are designed to incapacitate temporarily and are not intended to be lethal, according to the complaint.
- California statutes and regulations prohibit purchase and possession of certain chemical agents, and the state has applied those limits to Byrna ammunition, the filings say.
- Byrna provided sales figures and product descriptions in the filings to support its claim that the devices are widely used for self-defense.
- The complaint draws analogies to past cases in which courts found modern self-defense devices may be covered by the Second Amendment, while acknowledging courts have reached different conclusions when chemical agents are involved.
Reactions and next steps
Byrna CEO Bryan Ganz told investors and employees the company has faced sales blocks in California and New York, and the complaint says New York restrictions could be the next legal target if the California challenge succeeds. Company lawyers said without the challenged bans Byrna would be able to offer its products to “hundreds of thousands” of Californians seeking a less-lethal defensive option, language cited from the complaint.
The suit asks the district court for declaratory and injunctive relief and for any damages the court deems appropriate. The complaint was filed in the Southern District of California, where Byrna is bringing the constitutional challenge.
The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to a spokesperson reached after the filing. State attorneys general or regulatory agencies typically review such filings before deciding whether to defend or modify enforcement policies.
Legal context and enforcement
Courts assessing Second Amendment challenges to novel devices now apply the Bruen framework, focusing on whether a challenged regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That test has produced complex litigation over what counts as an “arm” and how historical analogues apply to modern technology.
Regulatory authorities distinguish between kinetic weapons and chemical agents in different ways. Laws that restrict chemical agents are often justified by public-safety aims, such as limiting mass-casualty risks or misuse by bad actors. At the same time, manufacturers of less-lethal devices argue they offer safer options for private citizens and for law enforcement when used properly.
Litigation over classifications can also hinge on technical definitions in statutes and on how agencies interpret those statutes when applying them to new delivery systems that were not contemplated when the laws were written.
Analysis
The Byrna suit puts courts in the position of balancing public-safety regulation against individual self-defense rights. If a federal judge finds modern less-lethal launchers are covered by the Second Amendment, states may face limits on their ability to classify and restrict nonlethal defensive tools by broadly applying chemical-agent prohibitions.
For governance and accountability, the case highlights how administrative classification decisions by regulators can create legal and economic consequences for businesses and consumers. A ruling for Byrna could force state agencies to revise how they classify projectiles and chemical irritants, while a ruling for the state would affirm broader regulatory discretion to restrict delivery systems that incorporate chemical agents.
Policy stakes include public safety outcomes and enforcement priorities. Advocates for wider access to less-lethal options argue these tools can reduce fatal encounters and expand nonlethal self-defense choices. Regulators and some safety advocates counter that chemical-agent restrictions are designed to prevent misuse and harms that are difficult to control once such agents are widely available.
The outcome could spur similar legal challenges in other states and affect how legislatures write laws to address modern technologies. It also underscores potential fiscal costs for state agencies defending regulatory positions in prolonged litigation and the economic stakes for private firms seeking to sell novel self-defense products in large state markets.
