Bills Firearm bills awaiting Governor's signature (2025)

[treelogger]

I'm expecting Newsom to veto 1127, but then for the Senate and House supermajority to override it.

Extremely unlikely. There hasn't been any veto override in decades. Even for bills that pass with a supermajority in both houses. No legislator is stupid enough to cross the governor in public like that. It would be a career-limiting move.

 

[treelogger]

This is why we need the CRPA, and the CRPA needs our support.

Usually I would say: Chuck Michel needs the money, and usually his firm and the CRPA (of which he is the chairman) deliver very little. But in recent years, their batting average has become much better. And quite a few of the bills from this session are ripe to be overruled by a federal court. So I do grudgingly agree that the community will have to fund efficient lawsuits to stop these bills.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Newsom can ignore them. Then they become law. That way he can say he didn't sign them to help his 2028 run. I'm sure these deals are all pre arranged.

 

[SteamedHams]

Extremely unlikely. There hasn't been any veto override in decades. Even for bills that pass with a supermajority in both houses. No legislator is stupid enough to cross the governor in public like that. It would be a career-limiting move.

They wouldn't be crossing the govenor by overriding it; they'd be doing exactly what he wants. He gets to say he voted against a gun ban, but the ban still gets passed. Win-win situation for him.

 

[rt5303]

Regarding AB1127. The bill has been passed by both houses and is now going through the process of engrossing and enrolling. Engrossing is proofing reading the Bill from its origins to ensure that all of the amendments are included as approved by the Assembly and Senate. Enrolling is the final copy of the Bill that willl be presented to the Governor for action. As for the action that can be taken, there are three options, not two. Sign and approve, veto, or allow 12 days to pass, taking no action, and the Bill automatically becomes law.
In my opinion, the current Governor, regardless of his Presidential aspirations, would not miss an opportunity to hold a presser and photo op to discuss how this legislation makes California a safer place to live and how California is leading the nation in rational and reasonable gun control. Sarcasm intended.

 

[westsidearms]

I have zero faith they are not signed into law. Zero.

 

[chefdude]

it was my understanding that the governor can veto but the bill will still pass.. so he can do that to look like a moderate for his presidential run.. but I may be wrong..

 

[adrkwan]

it was my understanding that the governor can veto but the bill will still pass.. so he can do that to look like a moderate for his presidential run.. but I may be wrong..

Yes, Newsom has X days to veto (I think it was 2 weeks or 30 days). If he does not veto, it automatically becomes law. If he does veto, it goes back to the legislature where they can bypass the veto with a 2/3 vote.

 

[doser]

Just want to say, these are the types of discussions we hoped to see here. Thank you to everyone participating in really thoughtful discussion.

 

[shroom]

I just wish that if something is banned it's banned for everyone. These LE exemptions and the ppt market are sickening. Blatant corruption.

 

[rt5303]

The California legislature does have the power to override a veto. It would take a two-thirds vote in both the State Assembly and State Senate to override the Governor. In my opinion, the likelihood of a super majority Democratic legislature overriding the veto of a Democratic Governor with POTUS aspirations is akin to having two feet of snow in Newport Beach.

 

[Ro-bo]

Except that just as with large-capacity magazines, the importation is illegal too. So anyone who happens to have one in their possession has to be able to answer a very uncomfortable question: Where did you get this from? Let me explain this in the language of a DA addressing a jury: Bob here has in his possession this item. Buying it is illegal, receiving it (as a gift or find or ...) is illegal, bringing it into the state from another state is illegal, making it from scratch is illegal. Bob did not have it in his possession 3 years ago, when the statute of limitations tolled. Therefore, beyond a reasonable doubt, Bob must have bought it, received it, imported it, or made it, and each of those acts has the same illegality associated with it. Because any other explanation of how Bob could have obtained it (space aliens brought it to him; he found a tree that grows it ...) fails the "reasonable doubt" test.

Of course, which is why I punctuated that comment with the warning about not breaking state law. The point was, there's no mechanism to stop someone from traveling out of state to do what people already do now with ammo and magazines.

As for the hypothetical trial, where that goes off the rails is just getting some case like that in front of a jury in the first place. It's a far-fetched scenario. How did someone get caught in the first place? What evidence is there? How is it being ascertained that this item didn't pre-exist the law? etc., etc., etc. Moreover, even the most overzealous prosecutor isn't likely to go after someone if their only crime is some low level offense that's going to be pleaded out anyway, assuming they could get it to stick altogether.

If there's data that actually shows otherwise (i.e. that a fair number of people are successfully prosecuted for standalone violations of things like the magazine ban ala SB23), I'd love to see it. As far as I can tell, it's just not happening.

 

[Ro-bo]

Newsom can ignore them. Then they become law. That way he can say he didn't sign them to help his 2028 run.

His position on gun control isn't going to help or hinder any planned national campaign, so there's no reason for him to overthink this. The 2A is a fringe issue and gets more and more diluted the higher the position being sought. If in fact Newsom makes a serious presidential run, the nuts and bolts finer details of which bills he signed with respect to firearms in California is going to be overshadowed by a million other more pressing issues of national politics. This is especially so in light of the current administration's tone.

 

[star.3d]

I had wanted to get canned responses in the original post - didn't happen, so here it is - feel free to personalize or just copy & paste. Feedback welcome.
Link to submit comments to the Governor - or call (916)445-2841

---

Subject: An Active Bill - AB-1127 (Glock pistol ban)

Governor Newsom,

I urge you to veto AB-1127. This bill is not about safety, it is about disarming lawful citizens by banning one of the most commonly owned and proven self-defense tools in America: the Glock pistol.

Converting any firearm to fully automatic is already a felony under both federal and state law. AB-1127 doesn’t enhance enforcement or close any loophole, it simply bans the Glock based on a standard internal part (the cruciform trigger bar) that is integral to the pistol’s safe operation. There is no evidence that converted Glocks represent a widespread public safety threat, yet this bill would entirely eliminate access to the platform in California.

Millions of law-abiding Americans - including law enforcement officers - rely on Glock pistols for personal defense. Even Kamala Harris, former Vice President and California Attorney General, has publicly stated that she owns a Glock. Why should politicians and security details retain access to these firearms while ordinary Californians are denied the same right?

AB-1127 is opposed by every major Second Amendment organization including the CRPA, GOC, and NRA - groups that represent millions of informed, law-abiding gun owners in California and nationwide. This bill isn’t about stopping crime - it’s about stopping lawful citizens from being armed.

Please veto AB-1127.

[Your Name], [Your City] CA

---

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

I just wish that if something is banned it's banned for everyone. These LE exemptions and the ppt market are sickening. Blatant corruption.

100%

I would like to see the exemptions challenged. First, I don’t see the constitutional argument that allowing certain people, based on their employment for the government, to be exempt from laws outside of their employment.

Secondly, also disagree the government employees should be exempt on duty as well, but that’s a harder argument because were are so accustomed with that being the case.

Make it make sense Constitutionally

I think these exemptions are partly attempts to maintain LE union support for these laws.

 

[timthetwin]

100%

I would like to see the exemptions challenged. First, I don’t see the constitutional argument that allowing certain people, based on their employment for the government, to be exempt from laws outside of their employment.

Secondly, also disagree the government employees should be exempt on duty as well, but that’s a harder argument because were are so accustomed with that being the case.

Make it make sense Constitutionally

I think these exemptions are partly attempts to maintain LE union support for these laws.

I think the main hypocrisy is that if they are no “safe” enough for the roster why allow are they allowed for LEOs. The logic does not follow.

 

[star.3d]

First, I don’t see the constitutional argument that allowing certain people, based on their employment for the government, to be exempt from laws outside of their employment.

I only recently learned that the exemptions are different for police/sherrif/CHP/OAG compared to other officers - you probably already know this. So a DFW ranger or Department of Cannabis Control officer could buy an off-roster pistol, but they're not allowed to sell/transfer it to a non-exempt buyer. Makes no sense to me.
PC § 32000(c)

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

I think the main hypocrisy is that if they are no “safe” enough for the roster why allow are they allowed for LEOs. The logic does not follow.

The logic is, the Police have some of the biggest unions, and if the Governor does not make exceptions for them, they will not back them for elections etc.

That is it. That is and will always be the only bribe, cough, I mean logic why LEO are exempt for anything.

 

[treelogger]

First, I don’t see the constitutional argument that allowing certain people, based on their employment for the government, to be exempt from laws outside of their employment.

From a philosophical standpoint, that is indeed very troubling. There is however a very powerful counter-argument: Law enforcement is on duty 24x7. That's actually not just the law, and also not a joke, talk to some officers sometime: It's not unusual for their radio to go off at 1am, when they are off shift, and get a request: "please come in right now, we need more help". This is particularly true in remote areas, and for certain types of LE that are spread thinly. Example: State park rangers (who are full LE with badge and gun) in the remote parts of the Northern California coast or the Sierra foothills. There is a reason friends in those careers always keep their uniform pants and jacket, and their duty belt (with badge, gun and radio) ready to go on at a moment's notice.

Another example (from a friend) who works in a big city PD (as an undercover investigator mostly): Going out to dinner with spouse and kids, and someone recognizes them and smiles and waves. Turns out the someone is a person our friend helped put behind bars for several years. Fortunately, the someone was friendly this time. But there is a good reason our friend always carries when off shift; you never know when the next someone will not be friendly.

Secondly, also disagree the government employees should be exempt on duty as well, but that’s a harder argument because were are so accustomed with that being the case.

That argument won't fly. On duty, as part of police and public safety work, agencies are allowed to do things others are not. For example: Go way over the speed limit, make U-turns in the middle of the freeway, have a rifle or shotgun loaded and in plain view in your car, and so on. And that includes things like large capacity magazines or off-roster guns. Part of that is being better armed than their opponents. From a hardware and equipment viewpoint, there is a similarity with the military, which is also allowed things that normal people don't have access to.

One could take the viewpoint (which is somewhat hinted at in the prefatory clause of the 2A) that both law enforcement and military are identical with "the militia", and one could then define the militia as "all able-bodied people (or males?) between the age of X and Y". That viewpoint was popular 300 and 250 years ago, and remnants of it exist in anarchist communities. For our society at large, this viewpoint is not relevant any longer.

I think these exemptions are partly attempts to maintain LE union support for these laws.

That trope is always used to explain why democrats (supposedly always in bed with unions) like to exempt LE from gun control law. And theoretically it might be true; after all our democratic politicians involve some unions heavily in decisions. BUT: They do that for a reason, namely delivering votes (not so much D versus R, but more turnout). And that argument only works for large unions, first and foremost the CTA and the SEIU where it represents government employees, and also large construction trade unions. The LE unions in California are fragmented, and always at each other's throat (there is nothing a park ranger hates more than a Chippie, and the feeling is mutual). And most LE are not actually reliable D voters anyway, independent of how much their unions play along with politics in press releases. I don't think buying off LE unions with gun law exemptions works, and I know democratic legislators share my viewpoint.

What does work: Appointing roughly half of the State Board of Education to be CTA members and lobbyists. That nets a governor a quarter million reliable votes. Or a school board pay the highest paid teachers even more, again the CTA will handsomely reward them at the next election (and young low-paid teachers get kicked to the curb, because the CTA doesn't care about them). Or require certain construction projects to only use unionized workers. In my (not at all humble) opinion, the CTA is the most evil thing in California politics, and responsible for many of the ills of our school system. But they get reimbursed handsomely for their power.

 

[GoldensRule]

I had wanted to get canned responses in the original post - didn't happen, so here it is - feel free to personalize or just copy & paste. Feedback welcome.
Link to submit comments to the Governor - or call (916)445-2841

---

Subject: An Active Bill - AB-1127 (Glock pistol ban)

Governor Newsom,

I urge you to veto AB-1127. This bill is not about safety, it is about disarming lawful citizens by banning one of the most commonly owned and proven self-defense tools in America: the Glock pistol.

Converting any firearm to fully automatic is already a felony under both federal and state law. AB-1127 doesn’t enhance enforcement or close any loophole, it simply bans the Glock based on a standard internal part (the cruciform trigger bar) that is integral to the pistol’s safe operation. There is no evidence that converted Glocks represent a widespread public safety threat, yet this bill would entirely eliminate access to the platform in California.

Millions of law-abiding Americans - including law enforcement officers - rely on Glock pistols for personal defense. Even Kamala Harris, former Vice President and California Attorney General, has publicly stated that she owns a Glock. Why should politicians and security details retain access to these firearms while ordinary Californians are denied the same right?

AB-1127 is opposed by every major Second Amendment organization including the CRPA, GOC, and NRA - groups that represent millions of informed, law-abiding gun owners in California and nationwide. This bill isn’t about stopping crime - it’s about stopping lawful citizens from being armed.

Please veto AB-1127.

[Your Name], [Your City] CA

---

Good letter but, a few things to consider.

In the letter you are speculating about the motivation of the law makers for advocating a ban on weapons designed in such a way as to be easily, quickly and cheaply converted to full auto mode; e.g. "This bill is not about safety, it is about disarming lawful citizens ", so, right off the bat you are putting the Governor in a defensive position and the odds are that the letter will just go into the circular file after reading that.

Next you make an argument that it is illegal to convert any weapon to full auto, whereas this is true, very few models of weapons can as easily be converted to fire in full auto mode without replacing a lower receiver (or modify it through machining) and adding a full auto sear (a very over simplified explanation) or designing and manufacturing a completely different fire group. The point about who currently owns a Glock doesn't really factor into the calculus, you could go buy one today if you wish. Current owners of easily convertible weapons will still be able to own them. They will not be able to legally transfer / sell them to anyone in California but they will not be prohibited from possessing them. So, current owners will still have access.

As for who opposes the bill, this is the typical cast of characters who oppose all firearms legislation. Have you been able to find any organizations that would actually grab the Governor's attention? Police or Sheriff unions or organizations, other public safety organizations, etc?

If the legislation takes Glocks off the market in California, the odds are that other states will follow suit and that Glock will bite the proverbial bullet and redesign the fire group or other parts of the weapons to prevent such an easy addition of an auto sear. The California market is quite large and represents a lot of revenue for Glock, even they aren't so arrogant as to just walk away from California and the other states.

It seems you are basically telling them that they are wrong in their reasoning and accusing them of sinister motives. Not really how to win friends and influence people. The best thing you said was "please veto AB - 1127". Can you come up with any better rationales or arguments as to why it should be vetoed, something that might actually resonate with the Governor? I've been thinking about it and I can't come up with anything. People will still be able to buy weapons and they will still be able to buy Glocks as long as Glock implements a redesign.

I would not be surprised if Glock has already done the engineering and will be ready, in short order, to submit the new designs to the state for inclusion on the roster. Or, Glock could challenge this in the courts but, I do not think they will win, not even with the corrupt SCOTUS.

Just a few thoughts to consider. I'll be curious if you can come up with some different rationales.