Glock: When The Bough Doth Break, The Cradle Will Fall

If you haven't already guessed, I'm here today for the dressing-down of a firearms manufacturer with whom I am particularly fond of. While I am a fan of many handgun manufacturers, I like to keep decisions simple when it comes to defending my life and the lives of those around me. That is why Glock has been my choice for everyday carry as far back as I can recall. I have had a few guest appearances over the years, and I'll admit there are handguns on the market that surpass Glock in ergonomics and performance, but I’m one of those “old faithful” guys, set in my ways —so don’t judge me! 

Recently, however, my trust has been shaken, not by the product, its performance, or reliability, but by Glock’s decision to kowtow in response to attacks by leftist states, particularly the Communist Republic of California, by discontinuing most of its handguns in favor of replacements that have been redesigned in a manner that renders them incompatible with machinegun conversion devices known as “switches.” In doing so, Glock has opened the door and rolled out the red carpet for anti-American agitators and subversive terrorist organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, who have now turned their sights on Ruger, demanding the company either stop selling its RXM, a polymer-framed striker-fired handgun modeled after the Glock, or make similar changes to the trigger mechanism to satisfy their demands. If you subscribe to the phrase, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile,” then you can likely guess where I’m going with this. 

From the Top

Machine guns are arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, and thus should not be banned or restricted from ownership by law-abiding Americans. Any attempt to do so, including the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and the 1986 Hughes Amendment found in the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA), constitutes a violation of both natural law and the United States Constitution. Does that make our federal and state governments criminal? Unequivocally yes. Someone should tell them they need to turn their own guns in. I digress. The critical takeaway here is that we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all, as owning a machine gun is a right in America, and the current “legal” status of that right demonstrates that legislators and judges more aptly belong behind bars rather than behind podiums. 

That said, I would also like to point out that it isn’t difficult to convert almost any semi-automatic firearm, whether a handgun or a rifle, into a machine gun with relatively simple tools and a little ingenuity. And therein lies the slippery slope of a strategy that seeks to appease and pacify a demon with an insatiable thirst to destroy liberty. At the moment, only Glock and Ruger have been called out by name, but make no mistake, leftists in America have more encompassingly nefarious goals in mind: to wipe out the firearms industry, disarm the community, and tear down the fabric of our nation. They will not stop with these two companies, nor will they stop at the cruciform-style trigger bar that has been the subject of this current debate. It is only a matter of time before they use this deceitful lever on additional manufacturers of Glock clones, and then on to platforms of different design, like America’s rifle, the AR-15. 

Aren’t Machine Guns Illegal Already?

Yes and no. Transferable machine guns are widely available (most manufactured before may 19th, 1986 and most imported before the 1968 Gun Control Act went into effect), but regulated under the NFA, a piece of legislation so dishonest that you won’t find it in any criminal code because it had to be snuck into the tax code. This was done to frame its unconstitutional nature as a tax rather than a gun law, a crime that the Supreme Court colluded with lawmakers on in the 1937 case, Sonzinsky v. United States. Perhaps we should update acceptable prison garb to include black robes. 

Aside from illegal NFA regulations, the Hughes Amendment established a cutoff date of May 19, 1986, effectively banning civilian ownership of any machine gun manufactured after that date, with exceptions carved out for those with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) who pursue and pay the Special Occupation Tax (SOT). As one of those licensees, let me tell you that the process of obtaining a post-1986 factory machine gun (government dealer sample) is a bit scary, and more than one person I know of has had to make a prison cell his home after he thought and was directed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on how to navigate that process correctly. I guess .gov agencies that show no reverence for the Constitution shouldn't be expected to demonstrate any accountability either. For this reason, many FFL/SOT license holders, myself included, avoid this trap like the plague. 

The cutoff date effectively launched pre-1986 machine gun prices into the stratosphere. For example, a transferable AR-15-style rifle will cost you upwards of $25,000. An MP5 will cost you at least $40,000. By this standard, I have no issue saying that the government used such a scheme to ban machine guns, at least when it comes to the ordinary citizen. If that makes you feel dirty and ashamed of your government, then congratulations, you’re an American. 

My point in explaining all of this is that machine guns and conversion devices are already illegal in almost every practical instance, and the actions taken against Glock and Glock-style handguns in California’s AB 1127 legislation amount to nothing more than the left’s consistent chipping away at the Second Amendment. 

How Do I Know? 

Look at this from a logical perspective. California reasons that banning “machine gun-convertible pistols” is in response to the rise in use of Glock switches by the criminal element. This is an enforcement issue, and in liberal dumpster fires like California, Illinois, and New York, it is clear that state governments are intentionally building sanctuaries and breeding grounds for criminal activity by going soft on crime, eliminating bail, disarming the law-abiding, and generally doing everything they can to buy votes from those who are committing these offenses.

Add that to the simple fact that criminals have never cared about gun laws. I’m sure you’ve heard this plea ad nauseam by now, but the left continues to play dumb because neither what is right, good, or legal factors into their agenda. Gang members, criminal cartels, and all manner of violent criminals bent on murder do not care about violating firearms laws. They’ll continue to convert guns illegally. Why would they care? Standard federal penalties for possession of an illegal machine gun are typically five to ten years in prison. Murder, on the other hand, can range from decades to life, with the median time served being approximately 18 years. 

Once again, the only people affected here are law-abiding citizens, and they’re not the ones shooting up city streets. In fact, almost everyone I know in the industry and the community considers fully automatic handguns either useless or a range novelty. These are not everyday or concealed carry dream guns for anyone who knows anything about defensive handgun use, and if I were forced to carry one, you can bet that I’d keep it in semi-automatic mode.

Final Thoughts

Glock has been using the cruciform trigger bar since the introduction of the first Glock 17 pistol in 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a company that knows a thing or two about manufacturing a world-class firearm, and the incremental upgrade process across the first five generations of its handguns demonstrates that success often lies in avoiding fixing what is not broken. In Glock terms, this is a significant change to crucial components, and only time will tell whether the changes will have any negative impact on reliability, performance, or shooting experience. I’m not saying we just hit the reset button and let every other handgun manufacturer catch up, but with a redesign like this, the potential exists for that to be the case.

Oh, you thought this would satisfy them? Adorable! Lawfare, through legislation or litigation, has been a tool of the Democrat Party for years, and the current situation is no exception. They will keep coming for our rights as long as we are willing to bend the knee and hand them over. No strategy involving the compromise of our Constitutional rights is acceptable, and considering the current status of gun rights in America, giving quarter in any way to anti-Second Amendment Bolsheviks is yet another step in the wrong direction in favor of a bottom line, especially in contrast to the fantastic work being done by Silencer Shop, Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America (GOA),  B&T USA, SilencerCo, Palmetto State Armory (PSA), and Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) to restore these rights. 

Glock’s decision makes short-term financial sense when you think about it, because California, strange as it may sound, has an enormous firearms market. Ultimately, however, it is a shortsighted strategy that creates a dangerous public precedent and encourages continued harassment of the community and firearms manufacturers. Glock may be able to continue selling its firearms in that horrible place still masquerading as an American state, and the move may even see them save money on potential litigation, frivolous as it may be. However, the left is playing a long game, and Glock just fumbled the ball.

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As a News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

---