Newsom’s ‘Glock Ban’ Sparks Constitutional Showdown

In yet another move against gun ownership, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law, triggering immediate backlash from the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners. The ink was barely dry when, just three days later, SAF, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a licensed firearms retailer, and two individual plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the law is a direct assault on the Constitution.

Dubbed the “Glock Ban,” AB 1127 prohibits licensed dealers in California from selling semiautomatic pistols with cruciform trigger bars, which happen to include virtually all Glock models and Glock-style handguns. According to the law, which takes effect July 1, 2026, these firearms can supposedly be “readily converted” into machine guns by installing a backplate device — often called a “Glock switch.” The bill’s supporters claim this is a public safety measure designed to target the illegal conversion of firearms into fully automatic weapons.

SAF argues that the banned firearms — Glocks and their clones — are indisputably in “common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense and sport shooting. That distinction matters because, under Supreme Court precedent (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008), firearms “in common use” cannot be banned. SAF contends that AB 1127 directly violates the Second Amendment because it targets a class of arms that millions of Americans — including Californians — legally own and use every day.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! 

As SAF put it bluntly: “Because Glock and Glock platform handguns are indisputably in common use… they fall squarely within the protections of the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.”

What’s more, the new law is riddled with inconsistencies. Californians can still privately sell these same firearms through the secondary market, and law enforcement is fully exempt. So if these guns are so dangerous, why the carve-outs?

Legal experts note that Glock switches are already illegal under federal law, meaning AB 1127 addresses a crime that’s already prohibited. But instead of going after the unlawful modification, California’s legislature chose to go after the platform itself — punishing law-abiding gun owners and dealers instead of criminals.

The law has also sparked concern in the firearms industry, as it bans not just Glocks but any handgun with a similar internal mechanism, including brands like Shadow Systems. Unless manufacturers redesign their pistols, these models will be wiped off California’s shrinking “Safe Handgun Roster.” Ironically, the law offers a glimmer of hope for manufacturers — if they can redesign and submit new models that don’t allow for easy conversion, those pistols may be allowed back on the market. Translation: only government-approved, state-blessed models will be allowed. For now.

If AB 1127 survives court scrutiny, it could open the floodgates to more sweeping bans.

With SAF, the NRA, and FPC leading the charge, Jaymes v. Bonta is shaping up to be a legal slugfest with national implications.