18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

    Join freeLog in
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

Year of the Glock 2026!

Because Glocks utilize the safety on the trigger, does that mean the Gen 6 would not need Mag Disconnect?
 
dadsctsv said:
Because Glocks utilize the safety on the trigger, does that mean the Gen 6 would not need Mag Disconnect?
Click to expand...
No. The safety on the trigger just means the Glock doesn't need a different manual safety like a thumb safety. Every new gun on the roster needs a manual safety, a MDM, and a CLI.
 
Route66ShootingSportsPark said:
The law did not list any models and did not force them from the roster. What it did is name features and functions and outline time periods in which dealers can receive and sell them but did not force them to be removed from the roster.
Click to expand...
So, is shadow systems still restricted under that time period?

How can the vagueness of that bill be applied to the online parts restrictions bill which is vague as well; in regards to vagueness, even though they are totally separate bills.
 
So just curious, wth does this mean for the V line?
 
Route66ShootingSportsPark said:
Yes, Shadow Systems are affected because they use a cruciform trigger bar.
Click to expand...
But they could in theory modify their design and be compliant since the bill allows that because it is the combination of cruciform trigger bar and being easily convertible by replacing the backplate, that is banned. If Shadow Systems changed their design to not be easily converted, like what Glock did with the V, they would not be banned. Same with any design that has a cruciform trigger bar.
 
Tere_Hanges said:
But they could in theory modify their design and be compliant since the bill allows that because it is the combination of cruciform trigger bar and being easily convertible by replacing the backplate, that is banned. If Shadow Systems changed their design to not be easily converted, like what Glock did with the V, they would not be banned. Same with any design that has a cruciform trigger bar.
Click to expand...
The CEO of SS did say they had something in the works to modify the cruciform trigger to keep it on the roster. We have 11 days left for them to announce something.
 
pikachu said:
How difficult will it be to revert it into a free state gen6? 😗
Click to expand...
Biggest thing will be that mag disconnect. If the manual safety remains the same, then it's the same. LCI is an eye sore, but some guns aren't so bad, especially the ones integrated into the extractor. Or even the P365 where they had the text on the optic plate cap. Came right off, no fuss.
 
I know that gun owners who compete is a small sample size of owners overall but California is 2nd (to Florida with 522) in the total number matches (314) registered on PractiScore (an even smaller subset).

Also, from what I could find California had an estimated 1 million gun sales in 2024, placing it in 3rd behind 2nd place Florida (~1.22 million) and 1st place Texas (~1.36m).

So it definitely makes fiscal sense to sell in California. The question is can manufacturers find a way to loophole California faster than they can legislate, or force them to make restrictions that are contradictory (more blatant than current ones) and perhaps easier to challenge at the federal level.

Screenshot 2025-12-18 at 5.38.23 PM.webp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom