|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: Glock expands California handgun roster footprint with newly certified 9mm
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a landmark update for California firearm enthusiasts and concealed carry permit holders, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) official Handgun Roster added new California-compliant models, including the highly anticipated single-stack-style subcompact Glock 9mm (Glock 43X) pistol variant.
The addition marks a significant shift for handgun buyers in the state, who have faced tight restrictions under California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. To meet state compliance mandates, the newly added Glock model incorporates specialized safety modifications required by state law—including a mechanical magazine disconnect mechanism, a tactile loaded chamber indicator (LCI), and a manual thumb safety. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(10/3/2026)
|
magazine disconnect "safeties" are dangerous
manual "safeties" are dangerous and make self defense more difficult
To hell with commiefornia. Do not patronize that state |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
