Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’

SACRAMENTO, CA — California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a sweeping firearm control bill into law Friday that effectively bans the sale of most Glock pistols in the state starting July 1, 2026. The legislation, AB 1127, prohibits licensed dealers from selling any semiautomatic pistol that uses a cruciform trigger bar and is deemed “readily convertible” into a machine gun using a device such as a Glock switch.

The bill’s language is highly specific — and clearly aimed at one of the most popular handgun platforms in America. Glocks, known for their striker-fired simplicity and reliability, use a cruciform sear mechanism that meets the exact technical definition outlined in the bill. With the added stipulation that the pistol must be “readily convertible,” lawmakers are essentially banning the sale of Glock models like the G19, G17, and others that have been repeatedly associated — legally or not — with illegal full-auto conversion devices.

Supporters of the bill say it’s a necessary step to prevent the illegal use of Glock switches, which convert standard handguns into fully automatic weapons. These switches are already banned under federal and California law, but AB 1127 goes further — cutting off sales of entire handgun models based solely on the potential that they could be modified.

Notably, one of the most prominent users of a Glock pistol in California political history is Vice President Kamala Harris, who carried a Glock 19 while serving as Attorney General of California. Under AB 1127, that same firearm will no longer be available for purchase in the state by law-abiding citizens after mid-2026.

Critics say the law goes far beyond targeting illegal devices and instead bans firearms based on design features shared by millions of legally owned handguns.

Governor Newsom, who recently appeared on the Shawn Ryan Show and insisted he wasn’t “anti-Second Amendment,” signed the bill without commenting publicly on its implications for Glock owners. Online reactions were swift and critical.

AB 1127 is just one of three new gun-related laws Newsom signed this week. AB 1078 imposes new requirements on concealed carry license applicants, including listing each firearm by make, model, and serial number. SB 704 mandates that all firearm barrel sales go through licensed dealers and background checks — targeting what lawmakers describe as a growing market for “ghost gun” parts.

All three laws are likely to be challenged in court.

While the legislation never mentions Glock by name, the technical definitions used — cruciform trigger bar and potential for conversion — are clearly aimed at the brand. And while conversion devices like Glock switches are already illegal, AB 1127 punishes the platform, not just the accessory. That’s like banning the sale of pickup trucks because they could be modified to break the law.

For gun owners outside California, this legislation is another reminder of the state’s expansive approach to gun control — one that often targets lawful ownership more than criminal misuse. From the microstamping requirement to the “unsafe” handgun roster, California continues to move further away from respecting the rights of its law-abiding citizens.

It’s hard to miss the irony: California has now banned the same Glock Vice President Kamala Harris once carried— and done so under the leadership of a governor who still insists he’s not against the Second Amendment.

https://www.usacarry.com/newsom-signs-law-banning-sale-of-most-glocks-in-california-targeting-convertible-pistols/

seriously though, californians, why are you okay with your state government treating you like mental and moral children compared to residents of other states?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49340958)

i've played around with c3 venue legal ones and if the platform isn't made for it the firing pattern is complete dogshit. try getting anything on a target FA magdumping a g22 and let me know how that goes for you

if anything they make them less dangerous in a certain sense (more dangerous in a different one)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49340978)

Option A) enforce the law

Option B) infringe on the rights of laws abiding citizens

"Sir, if we do A it will lead to black incarceration rates going through the roof."

"We can't have that. B it is."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49341105)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49341109)

He struggles to walk out of this as a winner. His best bet is just to sign it, not draw any attention to it, and wait for the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49341110)

But I agree he would rather this never happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49341123)

*comes into thread on a new gun law*

*sees a bunch of conservative poasters accurately articulate the current law based on recent 2A SCOTUS decisions*

*admits to not knowing about those decisions*

*caricatures conservatives by using an inapposite legal concept in the wrong way*

Consistent with 90% of EPAH’s contributions but still sad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49343147)

libs have scum for brains

libs lie

well done, newsom, you got the trifecta

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49341119)

This is the equivalent of a butthurt southern state passing a no-exceptions abortion ban in 2001. It's messaging, not a serious attempt as legislation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785252&forum_id=2most#49343080)