Another Year, Another Gun Ban!
Governor Gavin Newsom insists he’s not anti-gun. He says he supports the Second Amendment, respects lawful gun ownership, and just wants ‘common-sense safety measures.’ And on paper, that sounds reasonable. But policy is best judged, not by its intentions, but by its outcomes.
You can say you’re not anti-gun all day long, but if every policy you pass makes it harder for people to own one, your words are meaningless. That brings us to Glocks, one of the most common, affordable, and widely used handguns in the world, and why California is about to make them effectively unavailable to new buyers in 2026.
Glock Basics
Now, before we talk about why banning Glocks matters, we need to talk about what a Glock actually is, and why so many normal, law-abiding people choose them in the first place.
A Glock is a semi-automatic handgun made by an Austrian company called Glock Ges.m.b.H. They’ve been around since the 1980s and are now one of the most common handguns in the world.[1] Think of Glock like the Toyota Corolla of firearms. It isn’t flashy or luxurious, but it is reliable and widely used. Exact percentages of Glock sales fluctuate, but figures estimate that Glocks hold around 65% of the market share in law enforcement.[2]
Why are they so popular? They are most famous for their reliability above all – they fire consistently in a wide range of conditions. They are also simple and lightweight. Their design makes it easy to dissemble and clean them, as well as easy for first-time gun owners to handle and shoot. Plus, they are affordable compared to other California-compliant alternatives![3]
But of course, if people like something, then the California government has to find a way to take it away – which brings us to Assembly Bill 1127.
Glocks Banned in California?
This bill makes it so that no new Glocks can be sold in California starting on July 1st of 2026. It doesn’t call out Glocks by name, but it targets semi-automatic pistols with the potential for conversion into a fully automatic weapon. Let me break that down.
A Glock is not a fully automatic weapon. A machine gun, for example, would automatically load and fire multiple rounds of bullets, allowing for continuous gunfire if the trigger is held down. However, by default, a Glock is designed to fire only one bullet per trigger pull. But what California lawmakers are pointing out is that a Glock can be converted into an automatic weapon with the use of something called a “Glock switch.”
Here's where the argument for this bill hinges. This switch is about the size of a quarter and fits at the back of the gun’s slide mechanism. This would enable the gun to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull, the same way a machine gun is designed to do.[4] So, the bill says that any semi-automatic handgun, like a Glock, that can potentially be converted into a fully automatic weapon through the use of something like a Glock switch will no longer be legal for sale in California.
What is the goal of this bill? Well, advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America argue that these types of guns are too easily convertible by gun owners into a “deadly weapon,” and that this bill closes the loop on DIY-automatic-weapon-manufacturing.[5] They reference the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported that over 31,000 machine‑gun conversion devices were recovered nationwide over the past five years.[6] Supporters claim the bill is needed because the firearm industry has not fixed these designs on its own, making the guns a “weapon of choice” for criminals when combined with illegal converters.[7]
I think it’s important to recognize that hear the very real concerns of these advocacy groups and the people behind them. It’s admirable to desire and work toward a world with less gun violence! And clearly, devices that can convert handguns into automatic weapons are not devices that we want to be popular – because the people who want to use them are most likely not wanting to use them for good purposes.
But, like I mentioned at the top of the show, a bill should not be judged by its intention, but rather by its outcome. While we might agree that we don’t want deranged lunatics to have the access and ability to convert their handguns into machine guns and open fire in crowds or at churches or schools, we have to honestly examine – does this bill, this policy, put in place by our government, actually work toward achieving that goal? Is the bill designed to be effective, or to have tangible, measurable outcomes?
Reviewing policy demands honesty, even if that honesty feels difficult or as if it sets you back from accomplishing the outcome you desire. Because band aid fixes might feel good in the moment, but they actually work to prevent you from seeing real progress.
Efficacy of AB 1127
The truth is that AB 1127 is a band aid fix. Let me explain why.
The devices that turn Glocks into fully automatic weapons are already illegal under the National Firearms Act.[8] So the thing lawmakers are worried about here isn’t legal, isn’t sold in gun stores, and isn’t owned by people who follow the law. When something is already classified as a felony, the problem is no longer outlawing that thing but enforcing the laws already in place. But, instead of focusing on the illegal devices or the people trafficking them, AB 1127 goes after the base firearm – a gun that, on its own, functions the same as millions of other legal handguns. So really, it’s treating the symptom and not the disease.
If the conversion devices are already illegal, and converting a gun is already a felony, what exactly is this bill supposed to stop? The only people it clearly affects are people who weren’t breaking the law to begin with. And this is a pattern we see a lot in California – when enforcement is hard, lawmakers regulate the lawful activities instead to try to reduce the criminal activity, rather than just enforcing the law against the criminal activity.
Think about this logically. If it is illegal to use a Glock switch, and the ATF is still finding and recovering these switches – then the issue is not a lack of laws. The issue is that people who want to use these devices are already willing to break the law. So, if the problem is people who are not following the law, how does imposing more laws solve that?
California can outlaw these guns. But it won’t affect criminals – because criminals are already obtaining and using weapons and devices that are outlawed. Criminals will continue to access the guns they want, or the devices they want, illegally. That won’t change. What will change is that law-abiding citizens will now lose their ability to access the same types of firearms, even when being used for legal, vetted, and legitimate purposes.
This will not reduce gun violence, plain and simple, and so we should not be comfortable with any law being passed that we know right off the bat will not achieve its stated purpose.
AB 1127 is NOT Neutral
Here’s the thing: laws are not neutral. Every law changes what real people are allowed to do. This means that we can’t pass laws “just in case.” Especially when those laws restrict constitutional rights!
It is a wrong mentality to say – well, if we just outlaw enough guns, then it *might* help to reduce gun violence because it *might* reduce access to guns, and so we’ll just ban guns. Because in this case, the people who lose access are not the people causing the problem. In the case of AB 1127, it ignores the reality that criminals will continue to do criminal things and instead creates this fantasy world where we can just magically get rid of guns, as though bad people will abide by that. But then, on the flipside, it takes away a reliable, simple, and affordable type of gun that is used by first-time gun owners, women seeking self-defense, lower-income Californians who can’t afford more expensive firearms, and people who live in high-crime areas but obey the law. This does nothing to reduce crime, and instead it just hurts real Californians who will follow the law.
If we care about safety, we should be honest about what works. This doesn’t work. If the harm comes from the switch, then the switch, not the gun, should be the focus. Instead of banning guns, legislators should empower law enforcement to go after the importers of the illegal devices, online sellers and marketplaces, even 3-D print distribution networks. We should prioritize investigations into the trafficking of these devices and increase penalties for offenders to truly deter them from committing the crime. We don’t need even more laws and restrictions, we need to enforce the ones we already have in a way that deters criminals from acting.
This Matters for YOU
Why does this matter? Why does it matter if a certain type of gun is restricted or if more laws are just piled on top of each other?
Every new law has a cost. And we should demand that our government proves that cost is outweighed by the benefit. So, while it’s tempting to think – eh, it’s just one type of gun, who cares – we MUST care, because laws MUST be doing something beneficial for society or else they should not be passed. Symbolic laws feel good. It feels really good to pass a law and say “look! I did something!” But only effective laws do the hard work of actually making life safer and better for Californians. The real issue at stake here isn’t just guns, but governance. If we stop demanding evidence, precision, and restraint from lawmakers, we don’t get more safety – we just get less freedom and the same problems. We should not, we MUST not, be okay with that!
Constitutional rights are not mere suggestions. If a state is going to restrict certain rights, then the burden isn’t on the public to prove they deserve it – the burden is on the government to prove that restriction is necessary, effective, and narrowly tailored. In this case, it should not be my job, or your job, to prove to the government why we should be legally allowed to own Glocks. It is the California government’s job to prove how this bill is the only possible solution to the problem it’s attempting to solve. If the government can restrict a right without showing clear, measurable benefit, then that right only exists at the government’s convenience – which really means we don’t have rights at all. Protecting the public doesn’t have to mean quietly shrinking constitutional rights, there are other options available to law enforcement and legislators. But at the end of the day, enacting sweeping, blanket restrictions on guns is easier, and doesn’t demand painful honesty about the root causes of gun violence, and so that’s what our lawmakers have decided to do.
So, whether or not you’re a gun owner, AB 1127 should outrage you. Not because everyone needs to like guns, but because this is what it looks like when the state passes worthless laws that do more harm than good. And if you are someone who’s ever thought about owning a Glock, consider this your heads up: in a matter of months, that option disappears in California – not because of evidence that this will stop crime, but because lawmakers decided it was easier to restrict lawful access than to confront illegal behavior head-on.
References:
[1] Flores, Erick. “What Is a Glock? Guide to Understanding Glock Firearms.” Usdutygear.Com (blog), July 8, 2025. https://usdutygear.com/blog/what-is-a-glock-guide-glock-firearms/?srsltid=AfmBOoqZew5kXLZO5bngqv3GLaqccGg2UOP-ru0GxsnxbGu-jt97ps9Q.
[2] Holsters, Alien Gear. “American Gun Sales and Manufacturing Statistics: Industry Analysis.” Alien Gear Holsters, September 22, 2025. https://aliengearholsters.com/blogs/news/american-gun-sales-manufacturing-statistics.
[3] Tactical Training Center. “Why Are Glock Pistols so Popular? - Tactical Training Center - Flemington, NJ.” Tactical Training Center - Flemington, NJ, n.d. https://tacticaltrainingcenternj.com/pistols-for-rent/glock-pistols-popular/.
[4] Hutchinson, Bill, and Jennifer Vilcarino. “Machine-gun Conversion Device Dubbed ‘Glock Switches’ Taking Violence to the ‘next Level’: Experts.” ABC News, June 25, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/machine-gun-conversion-device-taking-violence-level-experts/story?id=110855649#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20'Glock%20switch,and%20holding%20it%2C%20experts%20said.
[5] Everytown for Gun Safety. “FACT SHEET: AB 1127 Stops the Spread of DIY Machine Guns in California,” September 18, 2025. https://www.everytown.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1127-stops-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-in-california/.
[6] Department of Justice. “U.S. Attorney And ATF Release New Public Service Announcement Warning Against Possession of Machine Gun Conversion Devices.” United States Attorney’s Office Central District of California, January 11, 2024. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/us-attorney-and-atf-release-new-public-service-announcement-warning-against-possession.
[7] Marty, Noah. “California Assembly Passes Legislation to Close DIY Machine Gun Loophole.” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel District 46, June 6, 2025. https://a46.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250606-california-assembly-passes-legislation-close-diy-machine-gun-loophole.
[8] Eger, Chris. “California Becomes 1st State to Outlaw Sale of Glock, Similar Semi-Auto Pistols.” Guns.Com, October 12, 2025. https://www.guns.com/news/2025/10/13/california-becomes-1st-state-to-outlaw-sale-of-glock-similar-semi-auto-pistols.
