Supreme Court Precedent Puts New Glock Ban on Shaky Legal Ground

U.S. journalist Roman Balmakov says California just tried something extraordinary: it didn’t ban a specific aftermarket part – it redefined the base gun itself. 

In his Facts Matter episode, Balmakov explains that Assembly Bill 1127 – the “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act” – recategorizes certain Glock pistols as “machine gun convertible pistols,” triggering a ban on new sales in California. 

He reports the ban kicks in July 1, 2026, by treating a Glock as illegal to sell because it can be “readily converted” with an illicit switch. 

Balmakov notes the irony: the Glock “switch” (the tiny device that converts semiauto to full-auto) was already illegal under federal law for decades. So instead of targeting the contraband part, the state is making the entire pistol the problem. 

Independent reporting backs up the big beats. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1127 into law on Oct. 13, 2025, establishing the conversion-based classification and a new-sale prohibition on affected Glocks. 

California outlets add that current owners keep their pistols, and – strikingly – private used sales by licensed dealers are still allowed, underscoring how narrowly the statute aims at new retail transactions rather than possession. 

What Roman Balmakov Argues: Heller + Bruen Set the Bar

Balmakov frames the legal fight through two Supreme Court pillars.

First is District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). He recounts how the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and struck down a handgun ban because it targeted an entire class of arms commonly chosen for self-defense. 

Second is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Balmakov emphasizes Justice Clarence Thomas’s rule: if the government restricts guns, it must prove the restriction fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 

In practice, that’s a history test, not a balancing test; modern policy goals don’t save a law unless they resemble historically accepted measures. A nonpartisan congressional summary of Bruen describes that burden squarely on the government. 

Balmakov’s bottom line: AB 1127 runs into both precedents. 

It narrows access to perhaps the most common modern handgun platform not by outlawing a contraband part, but by relabeling the base gun as a kind of machine gun – something Heller warned against when governments try to sidestep the “common use” category entirely.

The State’s Theory – and Why It’s Unusual

According to Balmakov, California’s thesis is simple: if a semi-auto pistol uses a common cruciform trigger bar and can be “readily converted” with a back-plate switch, then that pistol is a “machine gun convertible pistol.” 

The state’s logic is that conversion is too easy, so the sales ban should fall on the host firearm itself.

But that’s a novel move. Historically, lawmakers criminalize the conversion device (the “switch”), the act of conversion, or possession of a machine gun, not the millions of lawful base pistols owned by police, military, and civilians. 

Local reporting confirms the law’s conversion-based classification while noting that California didn’t criminalize possession and carved out a path for used inventory to move under dealer facilitation. That legal architecture is… unusual. 

My take: courts generally scrutinize relabeling. If you can ban a ubiquitous, constitutionally favored category of handgun by calling it something else, you risk gutting Heller by definitional end-run. Judges tend to notice end-runs.

“Common Use” Collides With a Market Reality

Balmakov points out that Glock says it has produced 20+ million pistols globally and that a large majority of U.S. departments issue Glocks – a real-world signal of “common use.” 

He also highlights a famous clip where then-Senator Kamala Harris told Oprah she owns a Glock, underscoring how mainstream the platform is.

This matters under Heller. When an arm is commonly chosen by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes – especially self-defense – courts generally treat it as protected. Bruen then asks the next question: Is there a historical analogue for banning sales of a common handgun because it can be illegally altered with a separate illegal part? 

The congressional Bruen summary signals the government must show that kind of tradition, not assume it. 

California can cite a long tradition of prohibiting machine guns and conversion devices. But that’s different from prohibiting new sales of a mainstream semiauto because a third party could install an already-illegal switch. Balmakov suggests that’s a bridge too far under the Court’s current test.

The Litigation Path: What to Expect Next

Balmakov predicts swift lawsuits. He’s right to expect Second Amendment groups and dealers to bring facial and as-applied challenges, likely seeking preliminary injunctions well ahead of July 2026.

On the merits, plaintiffs will argue:

• Heller forbids bans on an entire class of commonly owned handguns.
• Bruen forces California to prove a historical tradition of banning host firearms because they can accept contraband parts – a tall order.
• The state’s redefinition strategy is a semantic ban on Glocks, not a historically grounded regulation of machine guns or illegal devices.

On tailoring, challengers will say California already outlaws switches and true machine guns, so banning new Glock sales is overbroad. California, for its part, will argue “ready convertibility” and public safety. 

But Bruen deemphasizes modern interest-balancing, making history the key battlefield.

As for timing, California outlets have already sketched the statute’s contours and effective structure; the signing date is fixed, and the new-sale ban posture is clear. Expect early motions to test whether the statute survives the threshold Bruen inquiry before it ever reaches a full trial. 

Policy by Redefinition Is a Weak Hand

Balmakov’s through-line is persuasive: if switches are the problem, enforce the switch laws. Don’t convert a common handgun into a “machine gun convertible pistol” by definition and then ban new sales of the base gun.

Legally, Heller protects the handgun category precisely to block this kind of move. Culturally, the Glock is not an edge case; it’s practically the default service pistol in America. That’s the worst possible test case for a broad new-sale prohibition.

And under Bruen, California must prove our forebears accepted host-gun bans based on speculative misuse by illegal conversion. 

That history is thin. Laws against machine guns and conversion gadgets are plentiful; laws against the stock semiauto because of what a criminal might add later are not. 

A congressional legal explainer on Bruen’s test underlines that government carries the burden to find those analogues – and to date, the analogues we actually have point to targeting the illegal device, not the everyday handgun. 

None of this means the switch epidemic isn’t real. It is. But policy that misfires the target is likely to misfire in court, too.

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.