The Supreme Court held back in 2008 that categorical bans on handguns violate the Second Amendment, but California Democrats are hoping to do an end run around the Heller decision by banning a specific brand of pistol: Glock, which just happens to be one of the most popular gun makers in the country.
The California State Assembly had already passed a bill prohibiting a licensed firearms dealer to" sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any 'semiautomatic machine gun-convertible pistol'", which is defined in the bill 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". While Glock isn't named in the legislation, the handguns it makes would no longer be available for sale in the state because they can be illegally modified to fire full-auto through the installation of a switch.
Now AB 1127 has crossed over into the state Senate, and earlier this week the Glock ban passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 11-2 vote. The bill is now pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and if it's approved there the next stop will be the Senate floor.
As Guns.com's Chris Eger points out, the legislation also "prohibits any 'California-compliant' anti-switch block molded into the rear of the frame by the manufacturer," so Glock would essentially have to completely redesign their handguns in order to keep its access to the California market.
Such a facet makes the bill appear more like a ban for the sake of banning one of the most popular types of semi-auto handguns than a counter-DIY machine pistol measure.
The proposal is loudly backed by a host of national anti-gun groups with deep pockets. Some of these groups have been actively pushing litigation against the pistol maker. Everytown even went so far this week as naming gun makers that wouldn't be affected by the looming Glock witch hunt.
"The bill will have an important impact on public safety but only a small impact on how many types of handguns are available on the retail market: the majority of pistols available for sale in California, including by some of the largest manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, Taurus, and others don’t have this problem and would continue to be sold across the state," said the group.
Yeah, until Everytown and other anti-gun groups come up with an argument about why the next most popular pistol should be banned from sale.
It's important to note that, like virtually every other California gun control law, police would be exempt from AB 1127's provisions. You'd think if these handguns were that problematic that Democrats wouldn't want anyone to have access to them, but just like with "large capacity" magazines and "assault weapons", law enforcement gets a pass.
AB 1127 isn't the only bill making its way through the legislature that attempts to circumvent court decisions that favor the right to keep and bear arms. Last month the Assembly approved AB 1078, which imposes a slightly less restrictive gun rationing scheme than the "1-in-30" law that's been ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Though the Ninth Circuit found that there's no national tradition of rationing gun purchases to one every thirty days (and in fact, the court noted there's not even a "historical cousin", much less a twin to California's law), Democrat legislators are now trying to impose a three-gun-a-month rationing scheme on gun buyers; and one that would revert back to one-gun-a-month if the Ninth Circuit's decision is overturned by an en banc panel or (less likely) the Supreme Court.
And where is Gov. Gavin "I'm not anti-gun" Newsom in all of this? Well, he's certainly not objecting publicly to either bill despite his attempt to reinvent himself as a Second Amendment supporter (or at least 2A-neutral). I suspect that, whatever reservations he might have about continuing to fully embrace the gun control lobby's extremist agenda as he weighs a run for president in 2028, he'll still put pen to paper and sign both of these bills into law if given the opportunity. And given the blatant hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms on display at the statehouse in Sacramento, he may very well get that chance before long.
