Police Keep Their Glocks While Civilians Lose Theirs

On their Gun Owners Radio show, hosts Michael Schwartz and Alisha Curtin delivered an update that landed like a punch: Assembly Bill 1127 – dubbed the “Glock ban” – was presumed dead in California’s suspense file, then suddenly revived. Schwartz explained that once a bill hits the suspense file, it typically gets a binary thumbs-up or thumbs-down with little debate. AB 1127 had effectively been ignored – until it wasn’t. “It came back to life,” Schwartz said, outlining how a last-minute change altered the bill’s fate and pushed it back to the floors of both chambers for rapid votes.

From Suspense File To Floor Votes

Schwartz detailed the process: an internal committee can pull bills from the suspense file and send them to the Senate and Assembly floors. Because AB 1127 was amended, both houses must vote – and they can do so nearly simultaneously. Though a final vote hadn’t occurred at the time of their broadcast, Schwartz warned it could happen “any day” within a one- to two-week window. The message from him was blunt: the procedural roadblock wasn’t a roadblock anymore.

The Amendment That Flipped Opposition

So what changed? According to Schwartz, lawmakers added a carve-out to exempt individual law enforcement officers from AB 1127 – moving beyond the original version’s agency-level exemption. In his telling, that single amendment was enough to defang institutional opposition. “Once law enforcement no longer opposes this,” Schwartz said, “a lot more people feel safe about voting for it.” The political logic here is old and familiar: remove pressure from powerful unions and associations, and a controversial bill moves.

Police Keep Their Glocks; Everyone Else Doesn’t

The core substance, as Schwartz framed it, is stark: the bill would prohibit civilian sales of every Glock model in California, while law enforcement officers remain free to purchase and keep theirs. He added that the bill could also rope in non-Glock pistols that share certain firing-mechanism geometry. The result, he argued, is a two-tier system – one standard for citizens, another for the government’s armed employees. Whether you favor tighter gun laws or not, that asymmetry is hard to miss.

The Technical Hook – and A Wider Net

Schwartz and Curtin described AB 1127’s hook as going after specific Glock design characteristics – Schwartz referenced a “cross-shaped” component in the firing mechanism and claims about how the platform can be illegally modified. Curtin’s concern was broader: if lawmakers can target one widely used semiautomatic design on the theory that it’s modifiable, “the same argument can go for anything semiauto,” she warned. Her point wasn’t only technical – it was strategic. In her view, this is the “easy” target that opens the gate.

Union Clout And Election Math

Schwartz separated rank-and-file officers from their political representatives. He stressed he’s not condemning individual cops, many of whom he called “very pro-Second Amendment.” But he took direct aim at law-enforcement unions and associations, arguing their neutrality (after securing an exemption) encouraged legislators to support AB 1127. These organizations, he noted, “put a lot of money into getting people elected,” and lawmakers pay attention. Whether you see that as pragmatic politics or a sellout likely depends on where you stand – but Schwartz’s read on Sacramento’s incentives was clear.

Curtin’s “Foot In The Door” Warning

Curtin’s analysis was cold water for anyone hoping this fight ends with one brand. She described AB 1127 as a “small step” with big implications: once the state codifies that a commonly owned semiautomatic pistol is ban-worthy on modifiability grounds, the logic could migrate. “If we don’t fight this,” she said, “most semiautos – if not all – can be modified the same way.” Her fear: a wedge that gradually redefines what’s acceptable to own.

“Emails Won’t Move The Vote”

On tactics, Schwartz was unsparing. He urged people to call and write, but he also said (from experience) that once a legislator is seated in Sacramento, their position on gun policy is usually locked. In his view, there are only two consistently effective avenues: prevent anti-rights candidates from taking office (activism and elections), or sue after a law passes (lawfare and funding). “Prevention is the ounce,” he said; lawsuits are “ten pounds.” It’s an unromantic but realistic appraisal of how power is wielded in the Capitol.

The Lawsuit Path – And The Price Tag

Assuming AB 1127 passes, Schwartz fully expects litigation and called the bill “unconstitutional.” But he also put a number on it: “We have to raise a million dollars – at least.” He expects multiple state and national groups to pile in, but the combined cost could be substantial. He also noted that even with swift legal action, the law likely wouldn’t take effect until next year – time enough to coordinate, but not time to relax. From my vantage, he’s right about the burn rate. Major constitutional fights are marathons, not sprints.

A Message To Rank-And-File Officers

Both hosts drew a bright line between individual officers and their representatives. Schwartz asked officers, active and retired, to pressure their associations: don’t trade away civil rights for carve-outs. If unions accept exemptions that shield their own members while restricting everyone else, they’re not advocating for “public safety” so much as privileges for an in-group. That critique lands beyond gun policy; it’s a civic principle: laws that divide citizens from their government by design rarely age well.

A Provocative Rhetorical Jab

In expressing his frustration, Schwartz floated a provocative idea: if AB 1127 passes and makes Glocks illegal for civilians, maybe the first people to surrender theirs should be “the friends, family, and loved ones of police officers and sheriff’s deputies” – the very community whose unions cleared the way. He wasn’t calling for confiscation; he was making a pointed rhetorical argument about fairness and consequences. Whether you applaud or bristle, it underscores the resentment that exemption-driven policymaking breeds.

Policy By Exemption Is Bad Policy

Regardless of where you fall on guns, the architecture here is flawed. When lawmakers exempt the state and its agents from the rules that constrain everyone else, it undermines legitimacy. If a technology is too dangerous for citizens at large, why is it appropriate for individual officers off-duty and acting as private buyers? Conversely, if it’s safe and common enough for millions of trained civilians, why draw the badge line? A more principled route would require parity – either narrowly target specific criminal conduct (e.g., conversion devices) or maintain a single standard for acquisition and ownership. Carve-outs are political WD-40; they get things moving, but they corrode trust.

What Gun Owners Can Do Next

Curtin and Schwartz both pointed to two lanes: the ballot and the brief. If you’re in California, learn your district map, know when primaries and specials are happening, and engage before candidates harden their positions. If AB 1127 passes, support the legal fight – financially and otherwise. On a practical level, stay current: track the bill’s floor calendar, read the final text, and understand precisely what’s banned, when it takes effect, and whether there’s a grandfather clause or transfer restrictions. Confusion helps enforcement; clarity helps citizens.

Stall, Amend, Exempt, Advance

Michael Schwartz and Alisha Curtin’s report is a case study in how controversial gun bills move: stall, amend, exempt, advance. Their central claim is simple and combustible: police keep their Glocks while civilians lose theirs. Whether courts ultimately agree that AB 1127 crosses constitutional lines, the bill’s political economy – winning votes by carving out the government’s own – should give every Californian pause. Laws work best when they restrain the powerful and respect the people, not the other way around.