You read that right—California and Illinois lawmakers are pushing bills to ban Glock pistols. Why? Because some criminals have illegally installed so-called “Glock switches” to convert them to full-auto fire.
These devices, also known as auto sears, are already federally banned, heavily prosecuted, and undeniably illegal under the National Firearms Act. But that’s not enough for anti-gun legislators. Instead of punishing criminals, they’re coming after law-abiding gun owners—again.
From Banning Devices to Banning Guns
The logic behind these proposed bans is just as ridiculous as it sounds: Since some criminals have illegally modified Glock pistols, the solution must be to ban Glocks altogether.
In California, Assembly Bill 1127 seeks to outlaw the sale of Glock pistols and any other handgun that could potentially be converted to full-auto. Meanwhile, Illinois’ HB4045 is aiming for the same target. And you can bet other blue states are watching closely.
As Gun Owners of America National Director Mark Jones warned in a recent interview, this trend could spread.
“Our citizens need to be vigilant and not think it cannot happen here,” said Jones. “Colorado has shown us that with their transformation over a decade.”
Even in pro-gun states like Wyoming, gun owners are being warned not to get too comfortable. Elections have consequences, and the anti-gun crowd is playing the long game.
Let’s Be Clear: Full-Auto Conversions Are Already Illegal
Glock pistols, like the overwhelming majority of modern handguns, are semi-automatic—one round fired per trigger pull. The “Glock switch” alters the pistol’s internal mechanism to make it fire fully automatic, which is illegal unless you own a properly registered machine gun manufactured before 1986 (and good luck affording one).
These devices are typically imported illegally from China and other black market sources. They’re unreliable, unsafe, and built with all the quality you’d expect from a sketchy ePacket shipment.
Not only are they illegal to possess under federal law, but installing one can seriously damage your firearm—or injure the user.
Yet instead of focusing on those criminals, lawmakers want to punish the millions of Americans who legally carry and depend on Glock handguns for self-defense.
Banning Glocks Won’t Survive Constitutional Scrutiny
The push to ban handguns like Glocks isn’t just unconstitutional—it’s already been ruled that way.
George Mocsary, director of the Firearms Research Center and professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision explicitly affirmed the individual right to own handguns.
“It’s just an effort by these states to harass the people who own these Glock handguns lawfully,” Mocsary said.
That precedent is crystal clear: You can’t ban handguns just because a few bad actors break the law. And trying to justify a ban based on the hypothetical that someone might commit a felony with an aftermarket part? That’s like banning pickup trucks because someone might use one to flee a robbery.
What This Means for Gun Owners
If these bills pass, don’t expect them to stop at Glock. Any pistol with a polymer frame and a modular fire control group could be next. Heck, even metal-framed classics could be targeted if someone finds a way to hack them.
And for those traveling through California or Illinois with a concealed carry permit? Be careful. Even if your permit is recognized, your legally-owned Glock could make you a criminal under these new laws.
“It certainly could impact travel,” said Jones. “Even if traveling with a reciprocal permit, you need to comply with the laws of the state where you go.”
A Desperate New Gun Control Tactic
Jones summed it up best: This isn’t about safety—it’s about control.
“Specifically, to these switches, it is already a federal felony to illegally convert a weapon to full auto,” he said. “This is already illegal, so more unconstitutional gun control isn’t the answer.”
These proposals aren’t just misguided—they’re proof that anti-gun legislators will never stop at regulating illegal behavior. Their real goal is to chip away at lawful gun ownership, piece by piece.
And now they’re coming for America’s most popular handgun.
A couple of corrections. The ca bill does not ban glocks by name, it bans ALL pistols with a cruciform trigger bar. More than just glocks are affected . 2nd, ca does not recognize any other states ccw.
The left’s idea is called incrementalism. Take a little at a time. Make it look like it’s normal. Make people say that they, the other side, is only interested in whatever. Make it feel like it’s a small thing. That’s where semi auto bans come from. They tried to abolish handgun ownership 55 years ago and found it was too big a bite. So, they’ve moved to tiny bites of our freedom. The unseen and unspoken thing is they, the Socialist Democrats, will continue to bite into our liberty long after the guns are gone.
Social democrats are the people who can be converted to anything right of that designation. It’s really only about 10% of people on the left.
The rest go beyond the meaning of either “social” or “democrat”.
And you’re right, the mission is to chip away at your rights and mine. Until one day they take away all of our guns. And after that day, they can (and will) use the color of law to do anything they want to violate us and our families.
This fight is only beginning.
Realistically, this will become a backdoor semi auto firearm ban here in Commifornia. Any gun owner who works on their own guns and has actually disassembled them can see how potentially easy it is to engineer/modify any semi auto firearm to fire full auto. Glock switchs just make it quicker, easier and more convenient.
Once Emperor Hair Gel signs AB1127 into law, look to see the Sacramento legislators expand the same definitions to other makes and models. They simply don’t care that their laws are illegal and Unconstitutional and they have not been held accountable for the hundreds of illegal laws already in the penal code.
Unless Bondi and the DOJ come after them and actually prosecute them for their crimes, expect this to progress unabated.
In SC a Democrat named John C West pushed through a ton of anti gun legislation- hard to believe today with the Governor now in office– and his rule damaged the state for a decade. He passed a melting point law to ban certain guns. The legislature – republicans of course- later removed the one gun a month and the melt standard, the melt standard was removed because of the Glock specifically. So- you can straighten out stupid but remember- we elected segregationist- you would say racist today- because they ‘turned their thinking around’ in the form of West and President Carter.
Later West’s cronism was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Saudia Arabia where he was instrumental advising them on how to hide their true selves from the American public- in other words ‘improve their image’ West was just one of many leaving a terrible legacy. The modern Dems are no worse and hopefully they will be less if the public wakes up
michael collins, first greetings to a fellow Irishman. I can see my blackthorn cane leaning in the corner as I type. Forrest Gump’s mother said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” I think in this situation it’s applicable.
What is the “melting point” law? I genuinely don’t know.
Crap guns with zamack slides ie HiPoint.
Hi Point was around then, the law was aimed at cheap revolvers for the most part, although the Raven autos were also for sale
passed across many states in the 1970s. This law outlawed the sale of guns with a certain melting point in an industrial over. Intended to stop the sale of the cheap Rohm RG 22 and others. They were commonly for sale about 1975 or so for $35.00, sometimes less, sometimes a little more. Many were purchased in the south and trafficked up north as they say. Some states responded with a one gun a month ban and melting point law. Very stupid to go NY and sell these guns to anyone, you had to do paperwork on the sales, and just about all who did so were caught.
I’ve never seen a photo of a Glock “switch” on a Gen 5. Most Gen5 parts don’t interchange with 3 & 4 so I wonder if they don’t fit. Seems most of the evidence pics of converted Glocks I’ve seen are actually Glock clones like Poly-80 and PSA Daggers & such. There has to be at least half-dozen Glock Gen 3 imitations: PSA, Anderson, Poly-80, Zev, Shadow Systems, SCT, Lone Wolf, and Ruger. Banning Glocks won’t solve anything.
To the avowed anti-gun communist, banning Glocks will indeed solve a few things.
It will allow the .gov to immediately make a large segment of the population into IMMEDIATE criminals. That will in turn make it easier for the communists, who are in power in Cali and Illi, to disarm the populace, and to imprison anybody who would fight them on it, or just resist the will of the communist governors of those states.
A lot of Glock owners are people of color. Many of them won’t be able to afford a long, protracted legal battle. So there’s the race angle.
A lot of Glock owners will be people of not color. The communist will see these people as being racist, which will allow the .gov to justify coming down heavy on the population. Look for more 3 am ATF raids and 4 am FBI raids.
Remember, the anti 2A communist wants to break you. He wants to break your relationship with your spouse, your ability to earn a living and succeed in America, and he wants to break your will. He wants to get you to abandon your faith and your family. When you give up your ability to protect yourself, then the communist can just take away anything he wants. Take away your liberty? Yes, of course. What, you think you’re going to fight that? We already got you sorting all of your recyclables, even though some 80% goes to the landfill anyway.
Convert your male children to trans females? Yes. They got one of Elon Musk’s sons.
Take your land? Yes. Just look at all the people that have been killed during the ATF’s open season on American Citizens going back to the Bill Clinton administrations and earlier.
Get you out of your car or truck and put you on a bus or train? Yes. You will have nothing, and you will be grateful for it. And you will NOT be allowed to defend yourself; not without the .gov trying to put you in prison.
Anything that gives you a sense of self-sufficiency and personal self-reliance, the communist wants to take away from you. Better for him if he can just get you to give up those things without a fight or even a peep.
Wow Osprey that’s an awesome sum up.
Thanx for the read man, err bird.
Birdman
“…people of not color…”
I think we have a new acronym!
The details don’t matter, it’s all about control. Logic and facts don’t enter the equation.
“…any other handgun that could potentially be converted to full-auto.”
So, all semi-auto pistols. All you have to do is fix the firing pin into place.
Not really, slam fire doesn’t work with all guns and sometimes your firearm will fire with a semi closed breach.
Explosion.
I have developed a conversion kit for attaching a toothbrush to a Glock pistol. Every Glock it is installed upon immediately becomes a healthcare device. Next, I will work on attaching orthopedic shoes to Glocks…and TENS devices.
We fight back by changing the game!
Hornady…
…or Crest.
Let’s don’t get those two things mixed up!
rted Glocks I’ve seen are actually Glock clones like Poly-80 and PSA Daggers & such. There has to be at least half-dozen Glock Gen 3 imitations: PSA, Anderson, Poly-80, Zev,
dozen Glock Gen 3 imitations: PSA, Anderson, Poly-80, Zev,
When the law abiding gun owner realize they are the criminals.
IL HB4045 as presented:
Page 30
Subsection (h)
Lines 5 and 6 … “The defendant shall have the burden of proving an exemption.”
Last I knew, it’s the gov’t burden to prove that the defendant committed an offense not that the defendant is required to prove their innocence.
The estimate is 20 million glocks have been sold in the U.S.
How many 2A owners are going to stop shooting them or turn them over to a state government?
Someone somewhere keeps mentioning civil war. How would that look if the feds look the other way?
The Feds won’t look the other way though. The National guard won’t look the other way, any city with two precincts of LEO won’t look the other way, State Highway Patrol won’t look the other way.
Job security overrides Americans freedom. All of the sheriff’s that say ” We ain’t gonna” until their job is on the line.
How many have lost there jobs because, ” I won’t do it”. 3?
Osprey, I had to look this one up. It applies to making the firearm out of a substandard quality of metal with a low melting point . Think a zinc alloy or “pot metal “
Oh wow. I wonder if that includes the barrel…since that’s the part that gets the hottest.
Just the frame and this law was to target cheap guns , Saturday night specials, if you will, to keep “the poors” from being armed. I wouldn’t have my doubts if the big gun manufacturers, Colt,S&W,Ruger, weren’t behind this law. When it comes to money trust no one.
So I should stop selling switches in Cali now?
…the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision explicitly affirmed the individual right to own handguns.
Yeah, but they’re not banning “handguns”. They’re banning specific handguns because they’re super-duper dangerous and because these people then get to argue this, potentially all the way up to the SCOTUS, while you foot both sides of the legal bill.
What they really want is the precedent which they can expand later, and they’ll lie, cheat and steal in an attempt to get it. Failing that, they’ll take creating a form of harassment which is forcing you to burn resources.
Some might wonder how you could convince them that this is a bad road to go down given that it’s pretty well assured that no court’s going to let you personally fine people for proposing/passing unconstitutional laws.
The answer is that, if you haven’t thought of it yet, then it’s pretty simple but you might not really want to know about the Solzhenitsyn Solution.
Or, said another way; Neca omne mittunt et ii non plus mittent.
Illinois and I belive California went after KIA because their vehicles were easy to break into and steal. Now they want Glock.
They made trigger switches that already were illegal more illegal.
They aren’t prosecuting the perpetrators. What’s next? Sober drivers can’t use the roadways because impaired drivers might be out driving?
“What’s next? Sober drivers can’t use the roadways because impaired drivers might be out driving?”
Yep. Don’t forget that Cali State Trooper who was telling tourists from Canada that they have 30 days to get their Cali drivers license.
“I’m not moving here. I’m here on vacation.”
“I’m just informing you that you have only 30 days to get your California driver’s license, or we’ll impound your car. I’ll let you go today, but if another officer pulls you over later tonight, he could impound your car.”
“Are you an idiot?”
“No, I’m a police officer.”
So yes, your government is not on your side. No matter what side you’re on!
Sober drivers can’t use the roadways because impaired drivers might be out driving?
While I get the sort of “WTF!?” attitude behind this question, I’m going to treat it as more serious than it’s probably intended because it matters.
Short answer:
No, probably not because what you’ve proposed here doesn’t cut along a line they care about. If it did, then yes, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
Longer, but nowhere near complete answer:
For all the nonsense about how the Left operates, the Right basically has no clue how the Left actually thinks because it’s a foreign way of thinking that requires study to grasp. What most people see as crazy is anything but. There’s a method to the mad in 99.99% of cases. Even where it seems like they flip-flop arbitrarily from day to day, that serves a purpose, as the aforementioned Solzhenitsyn pointed out about the USSR.
This isn’t about “good governance” or “public policy”. It never has been. It’s 100% about the acquisition and maintenance of raw, bareknuckle power. Once you realize this, you’ll start to understand how they think. It’s never about [thing] it’s always about power. They tell you this in how they discuss basically everything, which is in terms of power structures. If that structure benefits anyone but them, it must be taken over or torn down. If it benefits them it must be maintained and strengthened at all cost.
In that vein, one of the things that these people love to do is to place their opposition in something I’ve talked about rather frequently, referred to as a “decision dilemma” where if you take either of the [usually] two [but sometimes more] obvious choices there is no good outcome. You can see them doing this with the illegal immigration thing right now. Comply and you lose. Go after the courts and they’ll crucify you as being what they already said you were, fascist. Ignore the courts, again, fascist and now also openly criminal.
If those things are technically true or not matters exactly 0.000000… 00000%. What matters is if the can win a messaging campaign and, generally, yes they can because, frankly, you don’t have one. This means theirs can suck because it’s unopposed. This is why Trump makes them as mad as a wet hornet, because he has a messaging campaign to return fire. They don’t even care if Trump’s messaging is good, the simple existence of this drives them nuts.
This tactic of creating a decision dilemma is particularly used where Rule #4 (“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”) can be applied with gusto.
Where it can be mixed with other rules, it 100% will be. Most often 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 but also 10 where applicable or necessary. Honestly, 10 is the big one they’re hoping for in a lot of cases.
[Since no one reads links:
1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
I would also point out the language here. “Enemy” is not a term picked at random.]
Where they deploy these tactics, mostly, they fall along places with a clear delineation between the “in group” (Lefties, Dems, whatever) and the “out group” (everyone else but particularly Conservatives, because, you know… gotta bash the fash, which in and of itself is a specific tactic meant to isolate people, but I digress).
They know that guns are one of these lines where they can draw a bright line between in/out group along the lines of good/bad person and end up with a Venn diagram that’s essentially a circle. Outliers (gun owning Democrats) are fed into the woodchipper because making omelets requires breaking eggs and they never cared about those people in the first place anyway.
They also select these targets relatively carefully with an eye towards enforcement. With regard to firearms that’s because they know that most gun owners are law abiding to a fault. That means that if the culture permits it, LE won’t hesitate to enforce the law in most instances because they have no fear of the person they’re enforcing it against.
A gangbanger with a Glock is a harder target than you are because you’ll comply with the arrest while the banger usually won’t.
Which means if they combine tactics they win over time by attrition. They take repeated bites at the apple with decision dilemmas that 1. cut along the lines they want and 2. are relatively easy to enforce. (#2 meaning fairly safe for their agents, it does not mean inexpensive or not time consuming, the latter two are fine because that’s what unionized .gov employees are for and you’re paying those people’s salaries/wages and overtime where applicable anyway).
They also run this same basic game at multiple levels simultaneously. This Glock thing is an example. It creates issues from the individual gun owner, or prospective gun owner, all the way up to the gun manufacturers and even FedGov in terms of interstate commerce.
And at most levels, it creates the same, basic, set of dilemmas. The only big thing that really changes is the target’s capacity to bear the cost. Glock or FedGov can afford this a lot more than some guy working two jobs and living in a bad neighborhood.
Sober drivers can’t use the highway because impaired drivers might be out driving.
Sounds good to me.
Most of the sober people die in the 100mph head on while the drunk flys out the window alive and well with his plastic bottle of cheap vodka still in hand.
Drunks may have accidents but it’s the sober drivers fault.
Get off my sidewalk.
“What’s next?”
Sober drivers will be required to stay on the roadways – it will become illegal to take evasive measures to avoid said DUI drivers! (Just like an unarmed populace will have no way to avoid armed criminals.)
Its getting to the point where those in power ignore the court anyway
I believe President Trump is going to have to ignore court orders, otherwise there’ll be no way he’ll be able to send even half of Joe Biden’s 20 million invaders to their countries of origin.
And I believe he CAN ignore court orders, especially if the courts are blatantly making it impossible for him to deport the invaders.
He might not be able to deport members of congress or governors from certain states, but I think he can ignore court orders on non-citizens, ESPECIALLY if they have already been ordered to leave.
There’s an easier solution, spend the manpower chasing down the illegal and building fences on going to businesses that hire them and giving that buisness a $500,000 fine for each undocumented employee.
Quite catering to people that can’t speak English, a milk cartoon doesn’t need to have 5 different languages that say Milk.
We speak English, learn it or leave moy droog
Interesting observation I’ve been able to make over the last year … my insurance Explaination of Benefits sent by UHC includes a listing of 33 available languages for translation of your bill, which already is sent with english and four other versions of the bill in duplicate form.
However, the two Denial of Benefits letters are only two sheets of paper, rather than the usual up to twelve, and are only in somewhat terse English.
Glock should’ve fixed this problem years ago…. They could easily make the back plate differently and send it to gun owners…. Glock knew this was a problem… It kind of “is” on the company…
Why ban glocks when you can just ban the conversion device. lol
Come on Dems!
In states, such as California, where the Propositions seem to be common. I have thought for some time that basically reads, “Any law regarding firearms, firearm accessories, etc, that exempts Law enforcement personnel, that excemption is null and void.” Make the LEO’s operate under the same laws as its citizens and many of these laws would end.
I was a Marine in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I was extremely trained in automatic weapons. I went through Scout Sniper school in the corps and could hit a target at 1300-1500 yards with one shot. Years later I started a gun collection and have never had any desire to own an “automatic (machine gun)”. Most cannot handle automatic weapons, and accuracy goes out the door. There is no real need for these weapons in civil society and the controversy they create.
ATF has been getting away with poorly advertised ‘shadow bans’ since the ’68 GCA was foisted on the citizenry (maybe before (?) ).
-ANY- firearm with a design that is deemed ‘readily convertible’ was then recognized as a machine gun, whether it had ever been commercially converted (even home-grown) or not.
All existing (and future) designs were required to be studied & tested by the BATFE technology branch, and if these ‘experts’ could recognize -in design- or were able to modify a firearm for rapid fire, it became a banned item, and possessing one that had been subsequently identified made that individual guilty of possession of ‘contraband’ , and subject to any penalties associated.
I’m astounded that Glocks were ignored this long.