California Moves Forward with Controversial “Glock Ban”

According to Copper Jacket TV, hosted by gun rights advocate William, the state of California has just taken a major step toward passing one of its most controversial pieces of gun legislation yet – Assembly Bill 1127 (AB1127). This bill, often called the “Glock ban,” has now cleared yet another legislative hurdle and appears to be on the fast track to the governor’s desk. William reported this in a video uploaded immediately after the vote took place, stressing that this is happening in real time and hasn’t even been updated on California’s official legislative tracking systems yet.

What Exactly Is AB1127?

AB1127 targets pistols that can accept automatic conversion switches – specifically, Glocks. While the federal government already makes it a felony to own or use devices that convert semiautomatic pistols into fully automatic ones, California lawmakers are now pushing to ban entire categories of guns if those models are capable of being modified, regardless of whether or not any modification actually takes place. In practice, that would sweep nearly all Glock models off California’s handgun roster. The group Moms Demand Action is claiming AB 1127 will stop the spread of DIY machine guns in California.

Banning What’s Already Illegal?

As William points out in his Copper Jacket TV broadcast, AB1127 is essentially a redundant law. Machine gun conversion devices – commonly known as “switches” – are already illegal under both federal and state law. In fact, a representative from Everytown for Gun Safety testified that fully automatic guns have been restricted “for decades.” William questions the motive behind passing legislation that makes what’s already illegal even more illegal, suggesting that this is more about optics and control than public safety.

Rushed and Unbalanced Hearings

One of the most concerning parts of the process, according to William, is the speed and imbalance with which the bill is moving through committees. On April 8, the bill sailed through the Public Safety Committee with a 7–1 vote. Just days later, it landed in the Judiciary Committee, where support remained strong and opposition was slim. Only two voices – from Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America – stood up in opposition, while a long line of people spoke in favor of the bill. This, William argues, gives lawmakers the impression that the public is mostly in support, which may not be the case.

Voices of Opposition: Sam Paredes Speaks Out

Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, delivered a powerful speech during the Judiciary Committee hearing. He emphasized that the devices in question are already illegal to possess, manufacture, or use, and that AB1127 only punishes law-abiding citizens. He warned that this bill would inevitably lead to a costly court battle, citing past Supreme Court rulings like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, all of which affirm the right to own firearms that are “in common use.”

Constitutional Concerns and Legal Precedent

Paredes referenced several key U.S. Supreme Court decisions to argue that AB1127 would violate the Second Amendment. In Heller v. D.C., the Court stated that firearms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. That logic was reinforced in McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the ruling to states, and again in Bruen, which established that modern gun laws must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Since Glocks are owned by millions of Americans, banning them in California could easily be challenged – and possibly overturned – in court.

DOJ Loopholes and Administrative Overreach

Another concern raised during the hearing was a clause in the bill that exempts California’s Department of Justice from administrative procedures that normally provide oversight. According to Paredes, this allows the DOJ to act without transparency or accountability, setting a dangerous precedent. William notes that this kind of unchecked power could lead to further arbitrary bans and rule changes down the line.

A Courtroom Showdown Seems Inevitable

William believes that if AB1127 is signed into law, it will absolutely be challenged in court – and he’s confident the plaintiffs will win. He points out that similar gun control efforts have failed under judicial review, and that California taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill for defending an unconstitutional law. As Paredes put it, “We are winning on this issue in other courts across the country.”

Heated Words from Lawmakers

One of the most dramatic moments came when a Judiciary Committee member responded to the opposition with a bold statement: “You may win in court, but mothers love their children more than you love your guns – and we will win this fight.” William criticized this comment on his channel, arguing that it shows a lack of understanding about the constitutional issues at stake. It wasn’t about choosing guns over children, he says – it was about preserving rights for all Americans.

The Vote: Overwhelming Support, Minimal Dissent

At the end of the hearing, AB1127 passed the committee with overwhelming support. Most committee members voted “aye,” with only one clear “no” vote and one additional member speaking softly, making it hard to confirm their stance. Even so, the tally clearly moved the bill forward to the next stage. William warns that unless there’s a sudden surge in public opposition, it’s only a matter of time before this bill lands on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Why This Bill Matters Nationwide

This bill isn’t just a California problem – it’s a national warning light. William from Copper Jacket TV hit the nail on the head when he said, “What happens in California doesn’t stay in California.” That line really sticks, because we’ve seen time and again how policies born in Sacramento tend to ripple across the country. Whether it’s environmental rules, vehicle emissions standards, or gun laws, other states often follow California’s lead, either out of political alignment or social pressure. If AB1127 becomes law, it’s not hard to imagine a future where states like New York, New Jersey, or Illinois try to pass similar bans based on nothing more than theoretical risks.

Political Theater

What really bothers me is how the entire bill is framed – not as a clear-cut safety measure, but as a symbolic gesture that targets law-abiding gun owners. It punishes people for what could happen rather than what did happen. There’s no nuance, no recognition that the devices they’re afraid of are already banned under federal law. Instead, there’s a rush to restrict tools and platforms used by millions of responsible Americans, like the Glock. This kind of emotional lawmaking can feel more like political theater than genuine public safety reform.

A Dangerous Precedent

Personally, I think this bill sets a dangerous precedent. If the state can outlaw a whole category of firearms just because someone might misuse them, then where does it stop? Does that mean anything modifiable is fair game? Are we one or two bills away from banning ARs, revolvers, or anything else with parts that can be swapped or upgraded? I’m all for keeping illegal machine gun parts off the streets, but AB1127 feels like a shotgun blast at the wrong target. It doesn’t just chip away at rights – it bulldozes them. That’s why people across all 50 states should be watching this one very closely.

Fast-Tracking a Fight

From the way AB1127 moved through committees to the imbalance in public testimony, it’s clear this bill is on a collision course with the courts. Whether or not it survives that battle remains to be seen, but William and others in the gun rights community are preparing for it. What’s most fascinating here is the blend of law, fear, and politics driving this bill. It’s a reminder that when emotion outweighs constitutionality, the results can be both dangerous and divisive.