California’s War on Glock: When Common Sense Gets Hijacked by Fear

You’ve got to hand it to California lawmakers—they never miss a chance to make headlines with bad policy.

This time, they’re going after Glock. Not because Glock sells machine guns (they don’t). Not because Glock broke any laws (they haven’t). But because criminals have been illegally modifying Glocks with cheap conversion devices, something that’s already a federal crime.

So what’s the legislative response?

Ban the gun.

We’re not making this up. Assembly Bill 1127, introduced in California, would outlaw the sale of any semiautomatic handgun that could be modified into a machine gun. That’s like banning forks because someone could stab somebody with one.

Let’s be clear: no one—no one—is arguing that criminals should have machine guns. But this bill doesn’t stop criminals. It targets law-abiding gun owners, everyday concealed carriers, off-duty cops, veterans, and families who choose Glock because it’s one of the most trusted platforms in the country.

This isn’t about safety. It’s about control.

Already Illegal, Already Enforced

Here's what lawmakers won’t tell you:
The conversion devices being used—the so-called “Glock Switches” or auto sears—are already illegal under federal law. Possessing one can land you in prison for a decade. The ATF already targets these devices. And law enforcement agencies across the country are already arresting people for using them.

So let’s not pretend there’s some gaping legal loophole here. The system already works—if you enforce it.

This bill isn’t about closing a loophole. It’s about making a political statement at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

Guilt by Platform

Let’s follow the logic here.

Some criminals illegally modify a product.

Therefore, the product itself must be banned.

That kind of logic would get laughed out of any courtroom. But in Sacramento? It gets applause.

If this passes, where does it end?

• Ban Toyota because someone turned a Prius into a getaway car?

• Ban smartphones because drug dealers use them to text?

• Ban butter because people die of heart attacks?

It’s a Slippery Slope—And We’re Already Sliding

You don’t have to squint to see the broader strategy here.

These bans are incremental. They’re not about stopping crime. They’re about slowly eroding the 2nd Amendment under the guise of “reasonable” reforms.

Today, it’s Glock.

Tomorrow, it’s every striker-fired pistol.

Next week? The magazines. The ammo. The holsters.

Make no mistake: this bill isn’t about one brand. It’s about branding all gun owners as a threat. And the moment we stop calling it out, the slope gets steeper.

What We Stand For

At Right To Bear, we believe in responsibility.

We believe in the rule of law.

And we believe in calling out political theater when it masquerades as public safety.

We don’t defend criminals. We protect the good guys—the ones who pray they never need their firearm but prepare anyway.

If California lawmakers want to stop gun crime, they should enforce the laws already on the books, not pass feel-good bans that do nothing but punish the people who actually follow those laws.

The bottom line?

Gun control should start with criminal control, not banning tools that millions of Americans use safely and legally every day.