California’s New Glock Ban & Barrel Rules: Why They’re Bad News

Hey friend, things in California are moving fast on gun laws. Two big bills just passed both houses: one being called the “Glock ban” (AB 1127), and another that requires face-to-face sales and background checks for firearm barrels (SB 704). Let’s talk about what’s going on, why these laws are problematic, and what might happen next.

What These Bills Do

AB 1127 (“Glock ban”)
This bill blocks licensed dealers from selling certain semiautomatic pistols, especially Glocks, if they are deemed “convertible” into fully automatic weapons with illegal Glock switches. The kicker is: Glock switches are already illegal. So this law effectively bans the most common handgun platform in use, even for people who only want a legal semi-auto.

SB 704 (Barrel sales regulation)
Starting July 1, 2026, any sale or transfer of a barrel must be done in person through a dealer with a background check. Barrels aren’t serialized or regulated as firearms, so treating them like guns makes little sense. It’s more red tape for law-abiding people who just want to replace or upgrade a barrel.

Why These Laws Are Bad

• The Glock ban punishes legal owners. Banning pistols because they could be misused is overreach. Switches are already illegal — banning the pistol itself is excessive.
• They target the most popular handgun in the U.S. Millions of people legally own Glocks. Blocking future sales is essentially banning the firearm most people use for defense and sport.
• The barrel law makes no sense. Barrels are not firearms. They’re not serialized, not receivers, and not the main component regulators normally track. Requiring background checks for them stretches logic.
• Both raise big constitutional questions. The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires gun laws to be consistent with historical tradition. There’s no history of banning common pistols or regulating barrels like firearms.

Will Newsom Sign Them?

Almost certainly. California’s governor has made gun control a top priority. Both AB 1127 and SB 704 passed the legislature, and they fit his agenda. Once signed, they’ll go into effect (AB 1127 likely January 2026, SB 704 July 2026).

Will They Be Challenged?

Yes, and that’s where things get interesting.

• AB 1127 (Glock ban) could be struck down as unconstitutional. Courts will ask: can you ban the most common handgun just because it can be converted with an already illegal part? That’s a tough sell under Bruen.
• SB 704 (barrels) may also be blocked. Regulating non-serialized parts as firearms is a big leap, and challengers will argue it has no historical basis or practical enforcement path.

Why This Matters

The goal behind these laws might sound reasonable — stop crime, stop ghost guns, stop illegal conversions. But the way they do it hits legal owners harder than criminals. Instead of enforcing existing bans on switches or cracking down on illegal trafficking, the legislature went after law-abiding gun owners and hobbyists.

Final Thoughts

If you own a Glock or swap barrels, this affects you. Both bills are likely to be signed, but also almost guaranteed to be tied up in court. Either way, it shows how far California is willing to go in regulating not just firearms, but even basic parts. It’s important we keep talking about this and pushing back on laws that cross the line from safety to outright infringement.

Duncan v. Bonta: What the Supreme Court Cert Petition Could Mean for California

Quick take: The long-running challenge to California’s magazine limit law is back in the spotlight. Petitioners have filed a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Duncan v. Bonta. Here’s the history, what this move means, what to expect next, and why this matters to left-leaning gun owners in California.

Table of Contents

Concealed Carry in California: What It Is, How to Get It, and What You Should Know

If you’re a left-leaning gun owner in California, you’ve probably thought about concealed carry—maybe even looked into getting a license. But between the legal jargon, outdated info online, and California’s maze of restrictions, it’s easy to get overwhelmed.

This post breaks it all down in plain English: what concealed carry means, how you can get licensed, the different types of carry, and where California law stands on open carry.

What is Concealed Carry?

“Concealed carry” simply means legally carrying a firearm in public where it’s not visible to others. Think holsters tucked under a jacket, waistband carry, or even off-body carry like a concealed purse or backpack.

It’s different from open carry, which is when your firearm is clearly visible. In most of the U.S., concealed carry requires a license or permit—and California is no exception.

How Do You Get a Concealed Carry Permit (CCW) in California?

In California, a concealed carry permit is called a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) license. It’s issued by your local sheriff or police chief, and the process can vary a lot depending on where you live.

Here’s the general process:

1. Apply through your local issuing authority (sheriff or PD).
2. Pass a background check.
3. Complete a firearms safety course (usually 8–16 hours).
4. Provide a valid reason for carrying. Since the 2022 Bruen decision, “self-defense” is generally enough.
5. Undergo a psychological evaluation (optional depending on the county).
6. Pay the required fees.

If you live in a more rural or moderate county, your chances of approval are generally higher. Urban counties like LA or San Francisco tend to have more bureaucracy and longer wait times, but even they’ve had to open up access since Bruen.

Types of Concealed Carry and Their Pros & Cons

Not all carry methods are created equal. Here are the most common types of concealed carry:

1. Inside the Waistband (IWB)

• Pros: Secure, easy to conceal, quick access
• Cons: Can be uncomfortable if you’re sitting a lot or wearing tighter clothes

2. Outside the Waistband (OWB)

• Pros: More comfortable, better access
• Cons: Harder to conceal, especially with lighter clothing

3. Appendix Carry

• Pros: Fast draw, very concealed
• Cons: Takes practice to be safe; not for everyone’s body type

4. Shoulder Holster

• Pros: Great for jackets, comfortable for long wear
• Cons: Slower draw, mostly for cooler climates or winter wear

5. Off-Body Carry (Bag or Purse)

• Pros: Doesn’t interfere with your clothing, easy to stash
• Cons: Easy to forget, lose, or have stolen—especially around kids

Your carry method should match your lifestyle. Comfort, access, and safety all matter, especially if you’re new to carrying.

What About Open Carry in California?

In short: don’t do it. California law makes open carry mostly illegal.

• Open carry of handguns and long guns is banned in public areas in most parts of the state.
• There are some exceptions for rural areas, private property, or certain unincorporated places—but you’re likely to get a visit from law enforcement even if you’re technically within your rights.
• Unloaded open carry used to be a form of protest, but even that was banned years ago.

So unless you’re on your own land or deep in the backcountry, open carry in California isn’t worth the legal risk.

Final Thoughts

Concealed carry is a personal decision—and one that more Californians, even left-leaning ones, are considering. It’s about being responsible, prepared, and aware of your rights and your limits.

If you’re thinking about applying for your CCW, start by checking with your county sheriff’s office. Take the training seriously, choose your gear wisely, and keep learning.

Big Win for California Gun Owners: 9th Circuit Rules Against Ammo Background Check Law

If you’re a gun owner in California—especially one who leans left like me—this week brought some surprisingly good news out of the courts.

In the case of Rhode v. Bonta, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional. Yeah, you read that right. A major 2A win from the same court that’s usually not very friendly to gun rights.

Here’s a quick breakdown of what this decision means, why it’s important, and what might happen next.

What is Rhode v. Bonta all about?

This case challenged the part of California’s Prop 63 that required background checks for buying ammunition. The idea behind the law was to prevent prohibited persons from accessing ammo, but the reality was a mess. Tons of legal gun owners were wrongfully denied or delayed, and the system failed to flag the very people it was supposed to stop.

The court said, enough. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled the ammo background check law violates the Second Amendment. It doesn’t hold up under the legal standard set by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen.

Why this is good for the 2A community—especially in California

Let’s be real—being a law-abiding gun owner in California can feel like death by a thousand paper cuts. Between 10-day waiting periods, the handgun roster, and ammo background checks, the hurdles add up. This ruling is a step in the right direction. It says that if the state wants to restrict gun rights, they need to actually justify it—and not with vague arguments or broken systems.

This decision is a win for responsible gun owners, including folks like us who don’t fit the stereotypical 2A mold. We believe in common sense, but we also believe in rights. And this ruling is a reminder that those rights apply to all of us, regardless of political affiliation.

What does this mean going forward?

• It’s not settled yet. The state will likely request an “en banc” hearing, where a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges can review and potentially reverse the decision. That could take months.
• Eventually, it could go to the Supreme Court. If there’s disagreement among the courts or the en banc panel reverses this ruling, the case could end up in front of SCOTUS. With Bruen as the law of the land, there’s a decent shot the ammo background check law won’t survive.
• In the meantime: Don’t assume you can skip the background check just yet. The law technically remains in effect until the court finalizes its decision and any appeals play out. So hang tight.

Long-term impact

The biggest takeaway is this: Rhode v. Bonta adds to the growing list of court decisions applying the Bruen standard to state gun laws—and finding them lacking. That’s good news for anyone fighting for fair, effective, and constitutional firearm policies in California.

It also sends a clear message: even in a deep-blue state, constitutional rights still matter.

Final Thoughts

As a left-leaning gun owner, I’m hopeful this case signals a turning point. We can support background checks and still demand that our laws actually work and respect civil rights. The ammo law didn’t do that—and now the courts are catching on.

So stay informed, stay legal, and let’s keep pushing for smart, fair, and effective policies that respect the Second Amendment for all Californians.

How I, a Democrat, Became a Gun Owner in California