California Dems’ Modified Glock Ban Bill Is Still Garbage

The fact that backers of AB 1127 have introduced some significant changes to the bill outlawing the sale of Glock handguns in the state is interesting, but the changes won’t make the legislation any more palatable to gun owners. 

The bill, which is currently pending a vote in the state Senate after passage in the Assembly, would prohibit the sale of any “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol; defined as “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition detailed the recent changes to the bill in a post on X earlier today. 

The California Glock ban bill has been amended at the last minute to 1) Delay the effective date to 7/1/26, and 2) To allow guns on the roster that pre-date the chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect requirements to be modified to no longer be a “machinegun-convertible… pic.twitter.com/KvYFlNppJT

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 10, 2025

The original effective date of AB 1127 was January 1, 2026, so the amendment only pushes it back a few months. The supposed ability to modify the design of “machinegun-convertible pistols” so they can still remain on the state’s Handgun Roster appears to be a more substantial change, but in practice it doesn’t mean much. Glock has already modified its design in Gen 4 and Gen 5 models, but those aren’t approved for sale in California because they don’t have a magazine disconnect feature. Gen 3 Glocks don’t have that feature either, but have been grandfathered in to the Handgun Roster, which makes them the primary target of AB 1127. 

Arguably, Glock has already complied with the amended version of AB 1127 by releasing Gen 4 and Gen 5 models, but California views those as distinctly different from Gen 3. The new language appears at first glance to take a more measured approach to the gun ban, but ultimately it’s more window dressing than anything else. 

So why was the bill amended? The likeliest explanation is to provide cover to any Democrat who might be worried about the political ramifications of banning the sale of what is arguably the most popular handgun in the country. They can now claim that this isn’t really a ban at all since Glock has the ability to keep its Gen 3 models available for sale so long as they change the design, even if the truth is much more complicated. 

To complicate matters even further, California’s Handgun Roster is already the subject of a federal lawsuit, and a district court has found that the chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and “microstamping” mandates are unconstitutional. The case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and its entirely possible that by the time AB 1127 takes effect (if adopted by the legislature and signed into law) the appellate court will have upheld the district court’s decision. 

If, on the other hand, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court, the case could be pending before the Supreme Court when AB 1127 is scheduled to take effect, and the lawsuit would have even greater importance given the implications it would have on California’s ban on Glocks. 

The bottom line at the moment is that California Democrats are still intent on adopting AB 1127 and prohibiting the sale of the Glocks that are currently available to California customers. The amendments might indicate some hesitation on the part of some lawmakers, but so far the bill has run into no substantive objections from Democrats, and I suspect the votes are there to send it to Gavin Newsom’s desk with or without these changes. 

Editor’s Note: If the anti-gunners can’t destroy our Second Amendment rights in one fell swoop, they’ll do it one piece at a time. 

Help fight back against their gun bans. Become a Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to take 60% off your membership.