California Made The Most Popular Gun Company Yank Their Guns

California’s new “Glock ban” wasn’t supposed to bite until January. But if you ask William, host of Copper Jacket TV, the scramble has already started – because Glock just yanked nearly all of its legacy models before the statute kicks in.

In his breakdown, William lays out the chaos this creates for buyers and shops racing the calendar, the curveball for ongoing lawsuits, and a slim, technical path that could bring redesigned pistols back to the state roster. 

I’ll say it up front: the policy might be aimed at a feature, not a brand, but consumers are the ones caught holding the bag right now.

A Sudden Discontinuation With Big Consequences

William says he learned that Glock is discontinuing nearly all current models – “except for like the slimline stuff” – with last shipments going out November 30.

That’s weeks before California’s AB 1127 takes effect and a month before the December 31 deadline shops were working under to stock up. The immediate effect, as William describes it: a mad rush got madder.

Distributors were already thin. Now, even the Gen 3 pistols, the only Glocks sitting on the state roster, are being phased out. For buyers trying to “get one before the ban,” availability just went from scarce to nearly mythical.

From an inventory perspective, this is devastating. Dealers were planning around a year-end cliff; Glock moved the cliff to Thanksgiving.

Why AB 1127 Triggered A Pre-Emptive Pullback

William reminds viewers that AB 1127 doesn’t ban “Glock” by name; it bans a feature – specifically, a trigger-bar geometry and back-plate access that allow illegal auto-sear conversion. 

In plain English, if a semi-auto pistol fits the statute’s definition of “readily convertible,” California treats it like a problem gun.

Glock’s answer, according to William, is a new “V” series that won’t accept that illegal converter. That’s the “twist”: the company appears to be redesigning around the feature California targeted, and it’s doing it now, not after the law turns on.

Strategically, that tracks. If you know a conversion-based definition is coming online – and likely to be cloned by other states – you redesign first, ship later, and minimize the window where distributors are stuck with soon-to-be-unsellable SKUs. 

Owners lose immediate access; Glock avoids a longer tail of stranded inventory.

The Roster Problem: California’s Real Choke Point

Here’s where William is blunt. Even if the “V” series fixes the feature California flagged, the roster is the gatekeeper.

If California’s list of “not unsafe handguns” doesn’t include a specific model, dealers can’t sell it. That’s why people still chase Gen 3s – they’re on the roster. 

The new guns won’t be, at least not automatically. In William’s words, if the roster didn’t exist, “Californians would be able to simply pick up the new V series the moment it came out.”

But it does exist, and William points to Renna v. Bonta (he calls it “Rene v. Bonta”), the Ninth Circuit case challenging the roster’s labyrinth of requirements. Without a win there, the roster will remain the choke point that makes the rest of this debate academic. 

I agree with him on the priorities: the feature ban matters, but the roster decides whether any workaround actually reaches a counter.

A Narrow Path Back: How The “V” Series Could Return

There is, as William puts it, a “silver lining.” He points to language in AB 1127 that creates a temporary on-ramp for affected pistols.

In short, if a pistol was already on the roster before January 1, 2026, it can be re-submitted with the necessary design change to address AB 1127 and be added (or re-added) without having to meet certain other roster requirements – think microstamping, loaded chamber indicators, or magazine disconnect mechanisms – as long as the manufacturer gets it in before January 1, 2027.

That’s huge. It acknowledges that the state targeted a narrow feature and, at least for a time, won’t use the change as a backdoor to force every legacy model through the full roster gauntlet.

But William also highlights the catch: California can scrutinize what counts as “necessary.” If Glock tweaks aesthetics, ergonomics, or anything beyond the conversion issue, the state could say, “New gun, new rules. Go meet all the usual roster requirements.”

That means Glock is walking a tightrope. To use this pathway, the company must deliver a surgical change – enough to defeat AB 1127’s definition, not so much that the model becomes “new” in the state’s eyes.

From a compliance perspective, my view is this: product managers and counsel will need a paper trail that cleanly ties any redesign to the conversion fix, and nothing else. 

You want to persuade a skeptical regulator? Make it boring. Make it minimal. Make it obvious.

The Lawsuits: James v. Bonta Will Press On

William also talks about James v. Bonta, the challenge to AB 1127 itself, backed by FPC, SAF, and the NRA. He doesn’t think Glock’s discontinuation moots the case – and I agree. The statute bans a feature going forward; a manufacturer’s voluntary product change doesn’t erase the law.

That said, William notes a real-world complication: the “main complaint” that California is banning Glocks could be harder to dramatize once legacy models sunset and “V” models roll in. Courts don’t decide based on vibes, but the optics shift when the market transitions.

Still, the constitutional question remains: can a state ban a class of common, otherwise-lawful pistols by defining them as “readily convertible” because of a single part interface? That lives or dies on history-and-tradition analysis, not on SKU availability.

The Consumer Reality: Panic Buying And Brand Skepticism

William reports a nationwide run on legacy Glocks as buyers hedge against uncertainty. It’s not just Californians; he’s seeing it in freer states, too. People know how Gen 3s shoot and last. The “V” series, for now, is a promise.

Is that fair to the new line? Not really. But consumer behavior isn’t a law review article. In a regulated market that keeps moving the goalposts, familiarity is a form of risk management.

He also voices frustration with Glock “caving” to gun-control pressure, while acknowledging the financial calculus. That’s a common split in the community right now. 

My two cents: in an era of conversion-based statutes, compliance by design is going to be the industry norm – not a capitulation, but a survival tactic. The question that will decide brand loyalty is whether the redesigned pistols perform like their predecessors. If they do, the storm passes. If they don’t, the market has options.

What To Do Next If You’re In California

William’s guidance is pragmatic.

If you planned to buy a legacy Glock before year-end, start checking inventory yesterday. With last shipments set for November 30, that window is closing faster than the law itself.

If you’re willing to wait for the “V” models, understand the two gates that must open: (1) Glock submits only the AB 1127 compliance change on time, and (2) California accepts that change under the temporary pathway without forcing microstamping or other add-ons. That is possible, but not guaranteed.

And if you want the bigger problem solved, your gaze should be on Renna v. Bonta and the roster appeal. Without a roster fix, every new model – Glock or otherwise – faces a slow walk to market, no matter how carefully it’s engineered.

William’s report captures the whiplash: California targets a feature; Glock preemptively retires most models; buyers and shops get squeezed now, not in January. It’s a case study in how design, statute, and roster bureaucracy collide.

There is a route back for redesigned Glocks, and it’s narrower than a spec sheet. If the “V” series makes only the change necessary to defeat AB 1127’s definition – and Glock meets the submission deadline – California’s own text gives the company a way to restore models to the roster without piling on microstamping and friends.

Until then, the best advice is painfully simple. If you need a legacy model, move fast and expect stockouts. If you’re waiting for the “V,” know that law and logistics, not just engineering, will determine when – or whether – you can buy one in California.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.