Staff Reports
The California Legislature just rushed through a new law aimed squarely at one thing: stopping federal immigration agents from using electric “shock” gloves inside the state. Assembly Bill 2760 would ban wearable electroshock devices for any law enforcement agency operating in California. If you think that sounds dramatic, wait until you hear why lawmakers moved so fast.
What AB 2760 actually does
AB 2760, carried by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp‑Collins, bars the use of glove‑style electroshock devices — marketed as the G.L.O.V.E. — by any law enforcement agency in California, and it blocks state and local funds from buying them. The bill also forces the state Department of Justice to study the devices’ safety and community impact and report back to lawmakers. Lawmakers added a sunset and study deadlines to the measure before enrolling it and sending it on to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has not yet said whether he will sign it.
Why the rush? ICE procurement and the G.L.O.V.E.
The proximate trigger was a federal procurement that raised eyebrows. Reporting showed the Department of Homeland Security/ICE had posted a sole‑source notice and later awarded a contract — roughly $16.7 million for about 6,000 pairs — for the G.L.O.V.E. device, which its maker sells as a “conductive distraction” that looks like normal gloves until activated to deliver a painful shock. That raised real questions: a federal agency quietly buying thousands of a new pain‑inflicting gadget, a sole‑source contract, lawsuits and warnings about injuries tied to the device. So California lawmakers decided to slam the brakes before the devices were distributed here.
Legal clashes ahead — and law enforcement’s warning
This is where it gets messy. California is trying to block federal agents from using equipment inside the state. Constitutional lawyers are already pointing out a likely fight over federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. Meanwhile, sheriffs and law enforcement groups argue the ban takes away a less‑lethal option that could avoid worse outcomes. That’s not a bad point: if the alternatives are nothing or a gun, you can see why some officers might want more tools. But at the same time, questions about how the G.L.O.V.E. would be used, who gets trained, and the device’s safety warnings are not trivial. Courts may soon have to sort whether a state can stop federal law enforcement from using gear it deems dangerous.
Why conservatives should pay attention
There are two problems here that ought to bother sensible people across the political spectrum. First, federal procurement needs scrutiny — a quiet no‑bid purchase of thousands of restraint devices is the opposite of transparency. Second, states and the feds should not be playing tug‑of‑war in real time when public safety and border enforcement are at stake. If ICE was trying to outfit agents without public oversight, that deserves criticism. But so does a reflexive state ban that may invite a court fight and leave officers with fewer options on the street. The smart approach is oversight, clear rules of use, and accountability — not knee‑jerk bans or unchecked buys.
Bottom line
California’s ban on electric shock gloves is a dramatic answer to a dramatic purchase. It exposes real tensions — federal power vs. state limits, officer safety vs. civilian safety, transparency vs. secrecy. Expect litigation, press releases and plenty of political grandstanding. Meanwhile, both sides should be pressed to explain: what exactly was ICE buying, why did it buy it that way, and who will be held accountable if people are hurt? If state lawmakers want to keep Californians safe, they should insist on answers rather than applause lines. The governor now holds the pen; his choice will tell us which side of that question he’s on.
