18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

WBT GUNS- The best selection of CA legal Firearms

AB 1127 Glock ban

Meh. I own Glocks, like Glocks. Wouldn’t feel any worse off if I had to carry a sig 2022 or 226.
 
21SF 2.0 said:
Not the point, this is why we are where we are.
Click to expand...
That is not why we are here. We are here because this state is in the firm control of the Democrats who run an anti-civil rights platform and directly infringe upon our gun rights every chance they get. This is further evidence that good, Free Americans need to oppose all gun control at every single point. Do not give the anti-gunners a single inch. They are never satisfied with their restrictions and gun control never solves the problem. So they want a new law and a new restriction. There is no compromise with them or they would trade full auto switches for assault weapons. You take our convertible guns and we get back sporting rifles. There is zero compromise. Just take, take, take.

Further, stupid thread titles like "Glock ban" do not help either. It is not a Glock ban. So of course dudes are going to say meh. Not everyone is a Glock fan and/or they troll a bit and/or they know there is virtually nothing they can do to stop a anti-civil rights bigot controlled legislature from doing what they are going to do. We simply wait for the courts. Sadly.
 
I’ve given money to the NRA going back to the 90’s and a significant amount of money to CRPA. We live in a super majority democrat state and I don’t know how we’re ever going to overcome that.

The state of California allowed tenants to not pay rent in my rentals for close to two years of COVID with little to no sanctions. The state took my property away and gifted it to others. We are at a point where leaving to another state isn’t a bad idea to me.
 
They take Glocks out, the rest will follow. Glock parts are everywhere and affordable, they want to start disarming Citizens for what is considered a long overdue Revolution. It doesn't matter what political aisle starts it either. What matters is The People staying united toward one common enemy and not be divided by divisive propaganda.
 
Custodian said:
They take Glocks out, the rest will follow. Glock parts are everywhere and affordable, they want to start disarming Citizens for what is considered a long overdue Revolution. It doesn't matter what political aisle starts it either. What matters is The People staying united toward one common enemy and not be divided by divisive propaganda.
Click to expand...
Matt Taibbi actually just wrote a good article about this called “Are we in a ‘soft’ civil war already?” Where he articulates how both sides are making veiled threats to rally constituents into direct actions. It’s behind a paywall on substack but if you know someone with access it’s a good read.
 
CRPA is calling it the glock ban. Doesn’t really matter what you call it. Please donate if you can.

CRPA - California Rifle & Pistol Association

Support Your Second Amendment Rights. The California Rifle & Pistol Association, founded in 1875, provides training in the safe, responsible, and enjoyable use of firearms; sanctions competitive shooting state championships; and fights for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for those...
crpa.org crpa.org

IMG_6672.jpeg
 
It's almost as if Copper Jacket and Armed Scholar's are anti-2A. Always clickbaits, like they are wanting what they say would be true.
 
westsidearms said:
It is not a Glock ban.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, but I read the bill and it specifies a cruciform trigger bar, which is what the Glock has, many other striker fired pistols do not have this style trigger bar, so IMHO it is clearly targeting Glocks, aka a Glock "ban". I agree with the CRPA's labeling of the bill.
 
Tere_Hanges said:
Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, but I read the bill and it specifies a cruciform trigger bar, which is what the Glock has, many other striker fired pistols do not have this style trigger bar, so IMHO it is clearly targeting Glocks, aka a Glock "ban". I agree with the CRPA's labeling of the bill.
Click to expand...
It does not ban the firearm. It removes it from the safe handgun roster. You can still possess them, sell them, and buy them.
 
westsidearms said:
It does not ban the firearm. It removes it from the safe handgun roster. You can still possess them, sell them, and buy them.
Click to expand...
If they arent on the roster that makes them "banned" for commercial sale. Sure PPT still goes. But the bill also has language "banning" dealers from transfering them. But I guess that doesnt apply to PPTs. Theres different meanings for "to ban" something.
 
Tere_Hanges said:
If they arent on the roster that makes them "banned" for commercial sale. Sure PPT still goes. But the bill also has language "banning" dealers from transfering them. But I guess that doesnt apply to PPTs. Theres different meanings for "to ban" something.
Click to expand...
Still not banned from commercial sale. They can be sold out of state and intrafamilial transfer is still legal. With the assault weapons ban, you cannot do any of that.
 
westsidearms said:
Still not banned from commercial sale. They can be sold out of state and intrafamilial transfer is still legal. With the assault weapons ban, you cannot do any of that.
Click to expand...
It's a ban on commercial sales in CA. I think you know what I mean. Obviously, I'm not referring to interfamilial or private party transfers. Correct, it's not as expansive as the ban on "AW"s. But it is still a ban. If passed, CA dealers will be "banned" from selling Glocks to non-exempt persons. Hopefully, that is clear enough for you to understand what I'm saying. I thought it was fairly obvious what the intent of the bill was.
 
Last edited:
It is their twisted grudge against us. The courts nullified microstamping, so California will always try to find clever ways to f** with us.
 
It appears that this is more than just becoming "off roster". Sounds like LEO are not exempt persons. Only actual LEO departments are exempt.

So now we wait for the police unions to step in to oppose or petition for an exemption.
 
Pythonfan said:
It appears that this is more than just becoming "off roster". Sounds like LEO are not exempt persons. Only actual LEO departments are exempt.

So now we wait for the police unions to step in to oppose or petition for an exemption.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the most likely outcome is a petition for an exemption. They'll likely get it and throw their support behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom