California’s latest gun control measure is already facing fierce legal fire, as the National Rifle Association and several prominent gun rights groups filed suit against the state over Assembly Bill 1127—a sweeping new law that bans the sale or transfer of Glock-style handguns with components that can be converted into fully automatic weapons.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a sharply defined constitutional question: Can the state outlaw an entire class of commonly used semiautomatic pistols based on the potential for illegal modification? The plaintiffs—including the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Poway Weapons & Gear, and two individual NRA members—say absolutely not.
“A law that bans the sale of—and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring—a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit argues. More specifically, it contends that semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars (the technical feature cited in the ban) are not meaningfully different from other legally protected semiautomatics.
California’s law, signed last week by Governor Gavin Newsom, prohibits the sale or transfer of any semiautomatic pistol deemed “machinegun-convertible.” This includes firearms that can be turned into fully automatic weapons using a device known as a “Glock switch”—a small, often 3D-printed piece that replaces the slide’s backplate and alters the firing mechanism. The law targets striker-fired pistols with cruciform trigger bars, which make such modifications more feasible.
But critics say the law is both overly broad and constitutionally flawed. By banning an entire category of handguns based on their potential to be misused, opponents argue, California is criminalizing lawful gun ownership in the name of preempting illegal behavior. Law enforcement officers, notably, are exempt from the ban—a carveout that gun rights groups say further undermines the law’s claim to fairness or necessity.
The lawsuit leans heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a new standard for evaluating gun laws. Under Bruen, any firearms restriction must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs argue that AB 1127 fails this test.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reported a dramatic 570% increase in illegal conversion devices seized between 2017 and 2021. For California lawmakers, that was enough to justify preemptive legislative action. But for gun owners, the state’s approach amounts to a blanket punishment for a problem caused by a tiny criminal minority.
The backlash isn’t just legal—it’s cultural. “You can make a switch with a 3D printer. You going to outlaw those too?” one gun owner told Fox 11. The concern, echoed by many in the gun rights community, is that AB 1127 is just another legislative stepping stone toward the long-suspected goal of banning all civilian firearms.