AB 1127 Glock ban

[SomeOne]

Quit guessing. Read the bill. You can still own and possess these pistols. It would be just like the roster and I as a dealer could not sell you one. But you could PPT it! LOL.

California AB1127 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2025-10-10) Firearms: converter pistols. [Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 572, Statutes of 2025.]

legiscan.com

The price of Glocks will jump sky high. Again, California legislature is trying to rewrite the federal laws. A rich smack from SCOTUS is highly needed asap.

 

[SomeOne]

Unfortunately the most likely outcome is a petition for an exemption. They'll likely get it and throw their support behind it.

LEO will get an exempt again. No doubt here.

 

[Pythonfan]

If this passes, I wonder if they will find a way to not allow glocks on ccw permits.

 

[westsidearms]

LEO will get an exempt again. No doubt here.

They are currently not exempt so they will need to step it up and change it.

If this passes, I wonder if they will find a way to not allow glocks on ccw permits.

Yes. Your local agency will probably tell you rostered guns only.

 

[Pythonfan]

Currently my IA does not restrict to roster only guns.

But the glock ban is not simply a kicking off the roster thing. The bill language is not saying anything about whether the firearm is safe or not at all. It bans CAL FFL from selling a new one to ANY individual person.

 

[Dvrjon]

Yes. Your local agency will probably tell you rostered guns only.

They don't do this now, so on what do you base this statement? (Yes, I know...anything can happen. And having spent the last 50+ years in this state, I can honestly say that I did not think we could ever get here).
But, since the Roster is an active entity, how would they keep up with such a concept?
For example, at the beginning of this year, six CZ pistols which have been on the Roster forever and have been authorized by various IAs for use as a CCW weapon fell off the Roster due to manufacturing changes. Do you anticipate that IAs will then notify CCW holders that they must change weapons? They haven't done that regarding the CZ de-listed guns or any other de-listed guns in the past.
Since the CCW statutes don't now preclude the use of non-Roster firearms for CCW, what section of the Penal Code would they cite for these actions?

 

[Dvrjon]

Currently my IA does not restrict to roster only guns.

But the glock ban is not simply a kicking off the roster thing. The bill language is not saying anything about whether the firearm is safe or not at all. It bans CAL FFL from selling a new one to ANY individual person.

And this denotes a shift in strategy by the antis. They are no longer focusing on "evil features" but are concentrating on design characteristics which, when illegally exploited, will change the nature of the firearm. On the heels of this, what is to stop them from banning 1911 platforms because they can be built with a sear which allows full auto? Think also in terms of the AR-15 which, when equipped with an autosear (and other elements but that won't matter), does the same thing as a Glock with a happy switch.

 

[westsidearms]

They don't do this now, so on what do you base this statement? (Yes, I know...anything can happen. And having spent the last 50+ years in this state, I can honestly say that I did not think we could ever get here).
But, since the Roster is an active entity, how would they keep up with such a concept?
For example, at the beginning of this year, six CZ pistols which have been on the Roster forever and have been authorized by various IAs for use as a CCW weapon fell of the Roster due to manufacturing changes. Do you anticipate that IAs will then notify CCW holders that they must change weapons? They haven't done that regarding the CZ de-listed guns or any other de-listed guns in the past.
Since the CCW statutes don't now preclude the use of non-Roster firearms for CCW, what section of the Penal Code would they cite for these actions?

At some point in time, some people were reporting that their IA only allowed rostered guns. I don't remember which liberal IA it was or where, but it certainly was not the City of Taft nor Kern County. I didn't believe it either, but quite a few people claimed it was true. I would love to be wrong on this.

Although I switched from a Kern County permit to a City of Taft permit when they would not put on my AR15 pistols and I think Kern County doesn't like 5.7s or something stupid. City of Taft does not care.

 

[Dvrjon]

At some point in time, some people were reporting that their IA only allowed rostered guns. I don't remember which liberal IA it was or where, but it certainly was not the City of Taft nor Kern County. I didn't believe it either, but quite a few people claimed it was true. I would love to be wrong on this.

My recollection of those reports were people not understanding the difference between “Rostered” and “registered”. SB 2 rendered the discussions moot.

Although I switched from a Kern County permit to a City of Taft permit when they would not put on my AR15 pistols and I think Kern County doesn't like 5.7s or something stupid. City of Taft does not care.

That seems to be an ammunition issue and not a Roster focus, and IAs have always had the authority to limit along those lines (not that I support it, but it simply has been there for decades).

 

[Malibu]

They don't do this now, so on what do you base this statement? (Yes, I know...anything can happen. And having spent the last 50+ years in this state, I can honestly say that I did not think we could ever get here).
But, since the Roster is an active entity, how would they keep up with such a concept?
For example, at the beginning of this year, six CZ pistols which have been on the Roster forever and have been authorized by various IAs for use as a CCW weapon fell off the Roster due to manufacturing changes. Do you anticipate that IAs will then notify CCW holders that they must change weapons? They haven't done that regarding the CZ de-listed guns or any other de-listed guns in the past.
Since the CCW statutes don't now preclude the use of non-Roster firearms for CCW, what section of the Penal Code would they cite for these actions?

The simple solution to this from Sacramento could be new legislation that mandates any weapon on a CCW permit be on the current roster. This would remove the IA’s ability to allow anything else. Heck if they really wanted, Sacramento could enact a whole, new separate roster that applies only to which weapons are permissible on a CCW permit regardless of which IA processes the permit, completely independent of the roster that allows simple purchase.
Once again, this whole business of “permits” has to be eliminated. Constitutional Carry is the only way for the citizenry to remain free.

 

[Pythonfan]

They don't do this now, so on what do you base this statement? (Yes, I know...anything can happen. And having spent the last 50+ years in this state, I can honestly say that I did not think we could ever get here).
But, since the Roster is an active entity, how would they keep up with such a concept?
For example, at the beginning of this year, six CZ pistols which have been on the Roster forever and have been authorized by various IAs for use as a CCW weapon fell off the Roster due to manufacturing changes. Do you anticipate that IAs will then notify CCW holders that they must change weapons? They haven't done that regarding the CZ de-listed guns or any other de-listed guns in the past.
Since the CCW statutes don't now preclude the use of non-Roster firearms for CCW, what section of the Penal Code would they cite for these actions

I would imagine they would use language to say "at the time of qualification, pistol must be on the safe handgun roster".

But my comment earlier was more to delineate Roster vs ban in respect to the glock thing. If a firearm is now banned for sale to all individuals would that give the state or individual IAs the gumption to start telling people their permitted glock is now not able to be carried?

 

[Malibu]

If a firearm is now banned for sale to all individuals would that give the state or individual IAs the gumption to start telling people their permitted glock is now not able to be carried?

Yes. It’s all about how far they can reach. Defiance of Buren is a form of competition for the state legislature and certain L.E. agencies. While the party in charge is still holding the reins, they are trying to as much damage that takes eons and $$$ billions in legal expenses to fix. It is the concept of lawfare in action.

 

[Dvrjon]

I would imagine they would use language to say "at the time of qualification, pistol must be on the safe handgun roster".

But my comment earlier was more to delineate Roster vs ban in respect to the glock thing. If a firearm is now banned for sale to all individuals would that give the state or individual IAs the gumption to start telling people their permitted glock is now not able to be carried?

A large number of folks are currently carrying guns which were never on the roster or have fallen off the roster, so it’s not just a Glock ban concept. There are a bunch of folks hauling Colt 1911’s, HKs, etc.* The check/balance on this is law enforcement. Any such provision adds complexity to the CCW process, diminishes the IA’s authority to control the program while creating unintended exposure to liability for the IA should they not rapidly decertify such guns and issue new licensing for other guns. Even under the protective veil of the application’s “hold harmless” and “indemnification” clauses, I cannot envision law enforcement taking on this exposure. Headlines of, “Sheriff Fuzzbutt authorizes CCW of illegal firearm,” is not what Fuzzbutt wants to see on reelection day.

*And if the state prevails in the challenge to Boland v Bonta (currently stayed at CA 9 and being re-briefed due to Duncan), every one of the provisional Roster adds will be decertified overnight.

 

[Modee14usn]

Honestly, with the Sig 365 and Hellcat/Pro, I do not sell as many Glocks as I used to. Not being able to sell the 48 and 43X hurts Glock a lot. So I am not sure I am going to go out of business just because Glocks cannot be sold.

They a hundred percent out sell 19s and 26s. s crazy because it other states 365s and 43xs are usually about equal with the 43x maybe edging out the 365 a bit more. The hellcats not even a contender in that space tho

 

[Modee14usn]

Unfortunately the most likely outcome is a petition for an exemption. They'll likely get it and throw their support behind it.

Because most of them are s willing to screw over those they're supposed to serve just like the politicians in this state.

 

[Dvrjon]

OK, let’s move away from the CCW/Roster issues and drift back to the bill, itself. The bill attempts to ban the sale of a certain type of firearm as expressly defined as:

SEC. 3. Section 16885 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

16885.​

(a) As used in this part, “machinegun-convertible pistol” means any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools, as defined in 11 C.C.R 4082, into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s backplate without any additional engineering, machining, or modification of the pistol’s trigger mechanism.

(b) Machinegun-convertible pistols do not include a hammer-fired semiautomatic pistol or striker-fired semiautomatic pistol lacking cruciform trigger bars, which instead have trigger bars that are shielded from interference by a pistol converter.

That is so specific as to define a certain type of gun and exclude other types. And in the Asssembly Committee on the Judiciary analysis, the sponsors* of the bill are quoted:

But Glock has known about the risk of machine gun conversion for decades and continues to sell its pistols without changing their design to avoid easy conversion into DIY machine guns. . . . However, Glock has not taken responsibility for its easily convertible products and continues to sell them without changing their design. Indeed, Glock’s popularity with criminals has been surging and — despite not selling its newer generations of handguns in California — Glock became the top manufacturer of crime guns in California in 2023.

Gun Owners of California opposition points out that:

“California’s restrictive handgun roster already prevents the sale of modern Glock modelsthat are designed to be incompatible with so-called “Glock switches,” yet AB 1127 furtherpunishes legal firearm purchasers by limiting their choices while criminals will continue tooperate without regard for the law

That definitively makes Glock the target of this bill. Which seems to conflict with the CA 9 Decision in B&L Productions v Bonta, (Page 23, Second paragraph):

In assessing whether particular “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” implicate that right, the approach we took inTeixeira—whether a challenged regulation meaningfully impairs an individual’s ability to access firearms—remains appropriate. Under that approach, we have held that a ban on all sales of a certain type of gun or ammunition in a region generally implicates the Second Amendment, as such a ban meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear that firearm or ammunition. See, e.g., Jackson v. City & Countyof San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 968 (9th Cir. 2014);Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 677.

It will be interesting to see how this runs through the legislative process, as it appears to facially oppose the CA 9 opinion.
//////
*Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and Students Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

B&L productions has been denied cert by SCOTUS.

 

[ef9boy88]

Lets hope they never have a butter knife and an SKS in the same room.

 

[Dzimi27]

I panic bought a Glock, well not really panic bought, but I bought it anyways. Will pick it up in a few days. I do plan on using for my CCW permit (when I eventually get it).

 

[tomrkba]

Once again, we see why any and all purchase, ownership, and carry permits are unconstitutional. It's almost like the Founders had experience and knowledge of how governments would twist laws...

 

[Malibu]

Once again, we see why any and all purchase, ownership, and carry permits are unconstitutional. It's almost like the Founders had experience and knowledge of how governments would twist laws...

They were terrified by the King’s men killing their fellow citizens, and knew that anything the King’s men knew (intelligence) about the colonists would somehow be used to help keep them in line, including who had weapons, training, etc. The Founders also knew that tyrannical government could not survive if the people they govern didn’t need or have use of them, and having the ability to survive, defend, and be independent had to be suppressed.
To that end, government has ALWAYS tried to diminish the citizen’s ability to defend or resist against oppression, no matter if that oppression is by common unorganized criminals or state sponsored.
The less the government knows about you and what you own, the safer you are.