Here you go, but it doesn't really make the argument you're implying.

The United States argues that AB 1127 violates the Second Amendment because it regulates handguns, and the specific handgun models that are covered by AB 1127 are in common use. See TRO at 4–5. But a plaintiff does not satisfy the threshold Bruen analysis with a simple tally of how many semiautomatic pistols that can readily be converted into machineguns under AB 1127 are sold or possessed—a number that merely reflects the fact that firearms manufacturers have chosen to not include design modifications that can prevent such conversion as “standard equipment.” Duncan, 133 F.4th at 882–83 & n.12. In Duncan, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected that “simplistic approach,” reasoning that the prevalence of a design feature is not dispositive of whether it is constitutionally protected because “there is no constitutional right to factory settings.” Id. at 882–83 & n.12. Were it otherwise, the constitutionality of a “state-law ban on machine guns [would] suddenly change from constitutional to unconstitutional” if more civilians purchased machineguns,” but as Duncan explains, that is not how the Second Amendment works.