Gov. Newsom Finally Signs Law Banning Glock Sales In California

California has rolled out a three-part package that reshapes how handguns, parts, and purchases will work across the state. At the center is Assembly Bill 1127, which bars retail sales of pistols the state deems “readily convertible” to full-auto, capturing Glock handguns and many Glock-pattern pistols. Alongside it, Senate Bill 704 adds background checks and FFL transfers for barrels, while Assembly Bill 1078 reimposes a monthly cap on firearm purchases. These aren’t small tweaks; they’re a system-wide overhaul that touches buyers, dealers, and manufacturers.

“California Bans Glocks,” Says William Kirk

Attorney William Kirk, host of Washington Gun Law, introduces the package bluntly: “California bans Glocks.” He explains that AB 1127 targets pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can accept small conversion devices – often called “switches” – to make a handgun run full-auto. In Kirk’s words, the law is “civilian disarmament legislation,” because it punishes a lawful design for what criminals do with already illegal parts. He adds that even design tweaks like a molded polymer notch won’t save a model from the state’s “readily convertible” category. Translation: Glocks and many Glock clones are effectively off the retail table unless they’re redesigned.

How the Ban Works on the Ground

Kirk emphasizes that AB 1127 is aimed at commercial sales. It blocks dealers from selling covered pistols, and it pressures manufacturers to either reengineer internals for California or step away from the market. He notes the model-by-model reach is broad: think “all Glock handguns as well as all Glock clone handguns,” plus other pistols that share that conversion-friendly geometry. This isn’t a single-brand strike; it’s a pattern-based prohibition written to sweep wide.

Reno May on What Buyers Should Expect

Creator Reno May, a well-known California gun-rights commentator, told viewers, “Gavin Newsom did in fact sign the three bills,” and immediately flagged the practical impact: if you want a Glock or Glock-style pistol, don’t wait. He explains that AB 1127 “does not prevent private party transfers,” that law enforcement is exempt, and that some existing stock already on shelves may move under a short window. But the broader point is urgency: “Supply is drying up… just at the distributor end, not even just at the gun store end.” For ordinary buyers, the shelf space will shrink first, and then disappear.

SB 704: Background Checks for Barrels

Reno May also breaks down SB 704, the new rule requiring eligibility checks and FFL transfers for gun barrels (and comparable upper assemblies). Think of it like California’s ammo background check – only for barrels. He notes a small fee and the usual California paperwork. The process will feel familiar but adds friction to a part that used to ship straight to your door. As he puts it, some retailers will simply refuse California orders, so niche or “boutique” barrels may become hard to find.

William of Copper Jacket TV on the Bigger Stakes

Over at Copper Jacket TV, host William frames the package as a constitutional gut punch. “Newsom… just shredded the Constitution with a stroke of a pen,” he says, after listing AB 1127, AB 1078, and SB 704 as the core of a “huge new gun control package.” He warns that AB 1127 “bans an entire category of handgun in California,” not by name, but by design. He also highlights AB 1078’s three-purchases-per-month limit as a return to quota-style restrictions that courts have already frowned upon. His message is not just about California; it’s about what comes next in other states.

Guns & Gadgets: Why “Easily Convertible” Is a Lawsuit Magnet

Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets, zeroes in on the core definition: California’s first-in-the-nation ban on “machinegun-convertible pistols.” He explains what that means for owners, dealers, and manufacturers, and calls out the law’s fuzziness: “How exactly does the state define easily convertible?” He argues that vague standards allow arbitrary enforcement and predicts Bruen-based challenges because there’s no historical tradition of banning a firearm for its potential to become something else. His bottom line: this “targets a technical feature, not criminal behavior.”

Banning Potential Isn’t Policing Crime

Here’s where I land. This approach tries to solve a criminal misuse problem by outlawing a lawful design that millions own and use without issue. If a state can ban a product not for what it is, but for what it might be with an illegal add-on, that tool can reach almost any mechanical system. That’s why I agree with Yanis that the “easily convertible” language is ripe for a court fight. Policy that bans potential ends up chasing ghosts while leaving real criminals, who already ignore the law, untouched.

AB 1078: Quotas and “Sensitive Places” Reborn

Kirk walks through AB 1078’s core: a three-guns-per-month limit layered on top of California’s already complex roster and transfer rules. He also notes the bill expands “sensitive places,” including public transportation, where carry is out regardless of your license. That kind of map-coloring matters: it reduces the practical ability to carry in everyday life, even for vetted permit holders. Copper Jacket TV underscores how quotas clash with the idea that constitutional rights aren’t rationed – a point California courts have recently echoed.

A Small Bit of Relief in AB 1078

Both Kirk and Reno May point out two helpful pieces tucked into AB 1078. First, out-of-state residents will have a formal path to apply for a California CCW. Kirk even suggests it could end up easier for some nonresidents than for Californians, given local delays. Second, a temporary restraining order issued without a hearing can no longer be used to deny a carry license. Reno May calls that “nice,” and he’s right – due process should mean something, even in licensing.

Security Theater vs. Real Solutions

If California wants to curb illegal switches, the direct path is enforcing existing laws against the people importing, selling, and installing them. That’s targeted, testable, and fair. Banning a broad swath of handguns because a black-market part exists feels like security theater – big headlines, thin results. Kirk’s legal breakdown, Reno May’s consumer warnings, Copper Jacket TV’s constitutional framing, and Yanis’s litigation lens all circle the same drain: the state picked a blunt instrument for a precise problem.

What Californians Should Do Now

Kirk closes by reminding viewers that “the lawsuits are going to start flying.” Copper Jacket TV encourages joining groups that will contest these laws in court. Reno May urges planning instead of panic – know what’s changing, act before shelves empty, and expect some retailers to opt out of the state. Yanis warns that, if this blueprint survives, other states will adopt it quickly. For Californians, the immediate action is simple: read the rules, plan purchases, and document compliance. For everyone else, eyes up. What begins in California rarely stays there.

A Turning Point Worth Watching

AB 1127 takes direct aim at Glock-pattern pistols by attacking their design, SB 704 stretches background checks to barrels, and AB 1078 swings back to monthly quotas while adding a few narrow fixes on carry. As William Kirk put it, California “just can’t get any crazier” – and then does. As Reno May warns, supply will dry up. As Copper Jacket TV argues, rights are being rationed. And as Jared Yanis predicts, courts will have their say. Until then, the new rules are real, and they reshape the state’s gun landscape in one quick stroke.

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.