This is how AB1127 is being celebrated

[glock84]

Its actually July 1 2026 that the Glock ban starts. The 3 purchases/transactions a month starts on April 2026 and the barrel background check starts in July 2027. See 1:45 below-

In July 2027 you have to file FFL paperwork, but January 2027 you actually still have to pick it up at FLL in person.

 

[MattB]

This stood out to me:

Nearly 135,000 messages and 2,400 calls were made by supporters to push this bill forward.

Volunteers and survivors showed up at the Capitol and across the state to demand action—and it worked.

They have an effective, focused campaign to drive these bills with thousands willing to engage and take action. I haven't seen the same kind of energy from the 2A community. I'm wondering why that is?

I don’t believe their numbers. I don’t believe anything that those anti gun organizations put out. Let’s face it - the legislature and governor were always going to go for this bull bill no matter what these orgs claim they did. It’s typical democrat crisis theater. “Look at us! We made that thing we hate for irrational reasons illegal! It doesn’t matter that it won’t stop crime. We’re doing our part!”

 

[21SF 2.0]

That’s what I’m thinking we have 25k members and rising but how do you package the message properly for people to open up their minds.

If you call them demo rats and newscum that does nothing but alienate people more, ie NRA mailers

I mean if they like newscum they are some type of rat lol.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

In less seriousness, if we could get this guy as a 2A advocate we stand a chance

Lol well they do say working out isn't for chicks it's for the boyzzzz

 

[ikeo1]

I mean if they like newscum they are some type of rat lol.

You aren’t going to change legislation like that. There’s literally no one else.

 

[.dC0m]

Well, this clip did not age well...

 

[treelogger]

We have jobs. We run businesses (or try to in CA). We have families. They have the time to do all of that. They are loosers. No job to take time off from. All they have to do is hire a cat sitter.

Nonsense. I'm a democrat. I have been campaign chair, campaign treasurer, and volunteer. I have spent thousands of hours volunteering for campaigns, and running them. All while having a family and having a day job. To be honest, for one of the campaigns I reduced my day job to halftime for 3 months. When I tell people how to campaign, I always tell them: For every person you convince to vote for your cause, you need about $20 to $40 in campaign expenses (mailers, advertising ...), and about 2-3 hours of volunteer time. Do the math.

That's what we need. A lot of Money. More money than the enemy has.

It's hard to get people off the couch.

Money? Sure, we could get Elon Musk give the NRA or CRPA a billion dollars. It wouldn't help at all. It would make things worse.

It is easy to get people off the couch: Ask them to volunteer for something they believe in, something that will make the world better. Gun people don't work that way; they are not driven by the wish to improve things, but usually by hatred of their enemies. That makes people angry, but it doesn't make them do useful stuff.

It’s not just money IMO, there’s no 2A leadership in the state unfortunately that anyone can take seriously.

But we have lots of 2A leadership in this state! We have Paul Nordberg, who sits on the CRPA board of directors, and runs a forum where all the true gun rights believers can hang out. We have Gene Hoffman, who used to run the ever so successful Calguns Foundation, and now sits on the board of the SAF. We have Brandon Combs, who has put a heck of a lot of work of turning the FPC into a well-oiled machine for paying his own salary. And we have Chuck Michel, who has become President of the CRPA, and uses it to steer much of the CRPA's money to his own law firm. With leaders such as these ... never mind.

I mean this organization obviously sucks but the demographic of people that want to ban guns is overwhelmingly middle class moms. I think that's important in understanding the kind of person that that cares about these things, most of them sincerely want guns away from their families, and they probably have a lot of money.

Insulting women voters isn't going to get your cause very far. And then adding all your usual stereotypes (in addition to the "cat sitter" comment above) won't get you votes.

I mean if they like newscum they are some type of rat lol.

Sir, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[couragewolf]

I don’t believe their numbers. I don’t believe anything that those anti gun organizations put out. Let’s face it - the legislature and governor were always going to go for this bull bill no matter what these orgs claim they did. It’s typical democrat crisis theater. “Look at us! We made that thing we hate for irrational reasons illegal! It doesn’t matter that it won’t stop crime. We’re doing our part!”

i can pretty much guarantee my position on firearms regulation is closer to free rpgs for the homeless than almost anyone on this board, but I can understand very simply why middle class moms can easily be persuaded that something which can reduce the likelihood of their children being shot in schools is more emotionally appealing than the argument “guns don’t kill people people kill people”.

Note the fact that pro gun groups are hopelessly married to weird religious niches of people that want door to door migrant inspections and have super weird hang ups about controlling peoples individual liberties doesn’t help anything.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

We need a laugh reaction in the "Like"/quick reaction menu.

In less seriousness, if we could get this guy as a 2A advocate we stand a chance

 

[john_marsten_1873]

That’s what I’m thinking we have 25k members and rising but how do you package the message properly for people to open up their minds.

If you call them demo rats and newscum that does nothing but alienate people more, ie NRA mailers

I'll opine that the negative sentiment toward firearms is largely socio-political. If dems/reps reversed their positions on 2A next year we'd see most of the public follow. The American public OFTEN votes against our own interests because politicians, celebrities, influencers, oligarchs...tell us to do so. Surprise, surprise!

I floated the idea of a range day to teach some of my friends wives - who are strongly liberal and consider themselves "anti-gun" - gun safety and how to shoot. They're actually pretty open to it. While they think guns are scary they're still curious and want to at least know how to use one in case they ever needed to.

 

[PoorRichRichard]

Picked up a G34 last month- love it! Put a 20C in jail today

I’ve never been too attached to my G19. I’ll probably be selling it for $800-$900 next year when the ban goes into affect.

 

[GoldensRule]

Interestingly the bill allows Glock to fix the trigger and keep it on the roster, do you think they will?

I suspect the Glock engineers have already redesigned the fire control group and will resubmit the new Gen 3 weapons for expedited roster re-approval well before the 1 July 2026 "stop sale date" and way in advance of the 1 January 2027 testing submission drop dead date.

There's far too much money for Glock to just walk away from in California.

It's somewhat analogous to the auto emission requirements that CA mandated for over 50 years. The auto companies fell into line and produced vehicles that were CA compliant.

Another motivation for Glock is they are racking up lawsuits against their company in numerous jurisdictions across the nation for producing weapons that are easily and cheaply converted to full auto. I believe the most recent suit was from the city of Seattle September 2025: https://smokinggun.org/seattle-sues-glock-for-pistols-converted-to-machine-guns/

No manufacturing company wants to deal with endless lawsuits, they want to make and sell their products, not become a full employment program for 2A attorneys.

I predict the reports of Glock's death in California are greatly exaggerated (apologies to Mark Twain).

 

[GoldensRule]

I'll opine that the negative sentiment toward firearms is largely socio-political. If dems/reps reversed their positions on 2A next year we'd see most of the public follow. The American public OFTEN votes against our own interests because politicians, celebrities, influencers, oligarchs...tell us to do so. Surprise, surprise!

I floated the idea of a range day to teach some of my friends wives who are strongly liberal and consider themselves "anti-gun", gun safety and how to shoot. They're actually pretty open to it. While they think guns are scary they're still curious and want to at least know how to use one in case they ever needed to.

I think you would need to find a way to convince people that children and other innocent people being killed by guns is "Okay". That is their primary objection. If you can't do that, you would need to put forth some kind of workable solution to that problem. Talking about changing human nature, curing mental illness and or suggesting that the solution to gun violence is more armed people are not workable solutions and will fall upon deaf ears when presented to logical, intelligent people.

Gun safety is great when it comes to people that want to be safe handling guns, it's meaningless when it comes to people intent on doing harm to others.

Offering people a new pair of eyeglasses to cure a toothache might sound great but, it doesn't address the issue.

 

[MattB]

i can pretty much guarantee my position on firearms regulation is closer to free rpgs for the homeless than almost anyone on this board, but I can understand very simply why middle class moms can easily be persuaded that something which can reduce the likelihood of their children being shot in schools is more emotionally appealing than the argument “guns don’t kill people people kill people”.

Note the fact that pro gun groups are hopelessly married to weird religious niches of people that want door to door migrant inspections and have super weird hang ups about controlling peoples individual liberties doesn’t help anything.

I agree that middle class parents are easily swayed by the democrats and their media mouthpieces claiming that something awful will happen to their kids if they don’t offer full support for whatever grotesque infringement the party wants to push this week. Not sure what you mean about the religious groups thing though.

 

[D.A.V.I.D.]

Is there any statistics on shootings in the state switches were used?

 

[GoldensRule]

I agree that middle class parents are easily swayed by the democrats and their media mouthpieces claiming that something awful will happen to their kids if they don’t offer full support for whatever grotesque infringement the party wants to push this week. Not sure what you mean about the religious groups thing though.

I'm confused. Do you not think that the majority of people of all income levels hear or read the facts (not opinion, just facts) of children and other innocents being killed by lunatics with guns and say to themselves; "How did this nut-job (or idiot) get ahold of weapons capable of this kind or carnage and how can we prevent that from happening again?"

Massacres are not partisan issues, they only become partisan when one side wants to protect the gun industry and stands in the way of logical, rational measures to try and prevent them from happening in the future and offers up completely undoable and irrational solutions that will never happen, e.g. curing mental illness, armed guards in every possible public gathering spot or business, etc.

Propaganda and or gun safety training is not going to solve this issue.

 

[GoldensRule]

Is there any statistics on shootings in the state switches were used?

I'm not a purveyor of statistics as they are easily manipulated. That said, here is a story from 2022 that discusses a number of incidents in California and nationwide.

Sacramento massacre shows rising dangers of handguns converted into automatic weapons

Sacramento massacre shows rising dangers of handguns converted into automatic weapons

www.latimes.com

And a different article from 2024 that discusses distribution of the switches.

Authorities Seize Over 350 Websites Selling “Glock Switches” and Silencers

Federal officials allege the websites were used to illegally import Glock switches and silencers from China.

smokinggun.org

 

[ikeo1]

I'm confused. Do you not think that the majority of people of all income levels hear or read the facts (not opinion, just facts) of children and other innocents being killed by lunatics with guns and say to themselves; "How did this nut-job (or idiot) get ahold of weapons capable of this kind or carnage and how can we prevent that from happening again?"

Massacres are not partisan issues, they only become partisan when one side wants to protect the gun industry and stands in the way of logical, rational measures to try and prevent them from happening in the future and offers up completely undoable and irrational solutions that will never happen, e.g. curing mental illness, armed guards in every possible public gathering spot or business, etc.

Propaganda and or gun safety training is not going to solve this issue.

They are different groups, the approach wouldn’t be for the moms but messaging for the dads and their friends. Awareness and training de stigmatize the firearm to a certain extent and can encourage one to obtain one. Making sure they’re a safe owner saves people the problem of kids finding unsecured firearms which is also a big reason mothers don’t like guns because kids find them and take them to school.

The attacks on schools are a different issue and also a subset of unsecured firearms. Some are able to purchase them others find them unsecured at home.

IMO the approach has to be systematic and multi-pronged to gradually address each issue to reduce problems. When looked at through this lens, you can see why CA attempts to do things but just in really bad ways.

 

[GoldensRule]

They are different groups, the approach wouldn’t be for the moms but messaging for the dads and their friends. Awareness and training de stigmatize the firearm to a certain extent and can encourage one to obtain one. Making sure they’re a safe owner saves people the problem of kids finding unsecured firearms which is also a big reason mothers don’t like guns because kids find them and take them to school.

That's certainly one school of thinking that stigmatizes women as unthinking and driven by irrational emotion. Another school of thought is that women are highly intelligent and can be motivated by simple logic, e.g. "Innocent children and other people are being killed in all types of venues, schools, churches, shopping malls, parks, business, etc. by either sinister or unbalanced people with powerful weapons they should not be able to obtain or possess. There must be a way to reduce these events." Talk to any of the people involved in these anti-gun groups and to people who find these shootings to be abhorrent and that is the main premise of their objections and these are the people who are driving the legislation.

We aren't talking about domestic partners who object to having a gun in the house.

The attacks on schools are a different issue and also a subset of unsecured firearms. Some are able to purchase them others find them unsecured at home.

IMO the approach has to be systematic and multi-pronged to gradually address each issue to reduce problems. When looked at through this lens, you can see why CA attempts to do things but just in really bad ways.

As for California doing things (firearm legislation) in really "bad" ways, I personally would enjoy knowing what the good and practical ways would be? So many of these mass shootings are committed not by people who obtain unsecured firearms from their homes but by people who walk into a store and buy the firearms legally.

Women are not stupid, in fact most of them are significantly smarter than most men. When it comes to the safety of their kids and most other things, they can smell bull and propaganda a mile away. Women have evolved to be smarter simply because they are not bigger and stronger.

 

[Nacho_Libre]

I want to start an organization called “Dads Demand Guns”.

Do it! I would widen it to something like "Californians for Public Safety" and we could market it as "we care about public safety and part of public safety includes the right to defend yourself and the right to bear arms."

But I think that quote might need some work. There has to be an effective way of making a short argument in one sentence about why 2a supports and does not endanger public safety and personal safety. I will work on this idea... and get back with that sentence