Is it time to sue CA over defacto ban on suppressors?

[Silence Dogood]

ATF eForm 4 Approval times are way down

https://x.com/2Aupdates/status/1772331984393523500?s=20

Inbox: "The ATF has made changes to eForm transfers that have brought wait times down to just a few weeks ? sometimes even just a few days or hours! And it's here to stay."

and with over 2M registered (according to ATF in 2021, https://americansuppressorassociatio...essor-figures/), suppressors are unarguably in common use in America. It is entirely unconstitutional for CA to block people from paying their tax stamp (not that I would argue NFA is constitutional, but that is another thread).

Do we have a law suit on this?

[NorCalBusa]

Be careful of what you ask. They could decide "every" handgun and rifle be required to be equipped with a suppressor and not just "any" suppressor- "minimum of 16" or 80% of weapon length (whichever is greater) length and diameter of five inches". You know, for the safety of all it is retroactive to all weapons.

[Silence Dogood]

I trust that the more wins we get, the more "creative" disarmamentarians will get with their unconstitutional laws but I suspect your hypothetical is not very likely.

On a somewhat off-topic note: how long until 9CA courts start placing injunctions to maintain the status quo as they should be doing if/when especially egregious gun-control laws like those presently being proposed (specifically the costly annual registration and safe storage roster) and your hypothetical are implemented.

[SpudmanWP]

I don't see this coming from CA or any State in the 9th anytime soon.
It's likely to come from an unfriendly State in a more friendly Circuit first.

[Quiet]

There is no current lawsuits over CA silencer laws, which predates the NFA by about a decade.

So, even if Title 2 Silencer were removed from the NFA, they would still be prohibited under CA laws.

[TruOil]

A California judge would likely find that suppressors are "accessories" not necessary to the operation of the firearm, and therefore outside the scope of the Second Amendment. (As it is, they are trying to make the same argument for magazines, but that is a poor fit compared to suppressors.)

[Fnfan]

Yes. Absolutely ridiculous.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

A California judge would likely find that suppressors are "accessories" not necessary to the operation of the firearm, and therefore outside the scope of the Second Amendment. (As it is, they are trying to make the same argument for magazines, but that is a poor fit compared to suppressors.)

Interestingly, in 2019, SCOTUS was petitioned about suppressors and one of the briefs in Kettler v U.S.... addressed the question... Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories such as sound suppressors.

That brief had Kansas as the lead, but also included Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. While that brief directly addressed whether the 2nd Amendment also protected accessories, it's interesting that the case itself involved three questions we're now being confronted with in California in some form...

1. Whether the National Firearms Act of 1934, upheld in Sonzinsky, continues to be a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power when the justifications for that decision have significantly eroded over the last 82 years.
2. Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories such as sound suppressors.
3. Whether the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act, targeting the exercise of a Second Amendment right, violates the rule of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) and Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 669 (1941).

The petition for cert was denied.

Interestingly... GOA REACTS TO SCOTUS DENIAL IN KETTLER CASE

...GOA Executive Director Erich Pratt issued the following statement...

"In 2017, President Trump directed the ATF to ban bump stocks, and despite many years of rulings that properly found them to be unregulated under federal law, ATF did what they were told. This led to GOA filing suit to enjoin the bump stock regulations in a case now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

"This President claims to be the most pro-gun president in history, but he needs to understand that he is deeply disappointing and demoralizing those who worked so hard to elect him. If every time a shooting occurs this President reacts emotionally to ban whatever weapon might have been used ... there will be a never-ending series of threats to the Second Amendment.

"Sadly, it appears that the new additions to the U.S. Supreme Court have not brought about the changes for which the gun community was hoping. Regardless, Gun Owners of America is determined to fight all those who oppose gun rights at every step, and we will continue to challenge the NFA and bans on suppressors in Congress and in the courts."

Thus, it's not necessarily "just" California judges many feel we have to be mindful of.

ETA: Two Calguns threads on Kettler...

Kettler V. US - NFA case : Cert Denied 6-10-19

Kettler v US 2019: GOA Challenge NFA '34 AT SCOTUS?

One Calguns thread related to GOA's comments on Trump...

[DolphinFan]

Is there ANY law between 1790-1869, where ANY device used to lessen the rifle report was unlawful?
Any analogous lack of noise law?
No.
So,
1) are silencers in common use?
Yes
2) are they lawful?
Yes with a tax stamp.
3) is it legal to tax, other than sales tax, a protected part, in common use?
NO, see poll tax.
4) how many steps to determine IF a product/item is protected under the 2A?
1, (one), is it in common use, and are there any analogous laws between the ratification of the 2A-14A 1790-1869.
5) is there a second step?
NO.

[Quiet]

AFAIK...
The 1920s CA ban on silencers was done in response to poaching (illegal hunting) in CA.

1909 is when the first silencers were available on the commercial market.

[ProfChaos]

I just thought of something.

Could we have someone with a hearing disability file suit? Their head is damaged in such a way that they are unable to safely wear hearing protection and a silencer would be able to bring the dB of the firearm down to safer levels without causing damage.

[Silence Dogood]

Thank you Quiet. As compelling an interest as preventing poaching is, how does it balance against the usefulness of the suppressor in both military and self-defense contexts?

[AlmostHeaven]

Theoretically, I would absolutely love for someone to bring a lawsuit challenging the ban on suppressors in California.

Practically, I do not believe the Supreme Court currently has a majority willing to encompass silencers into Second Amendment coverage. Rahimi and Cargill oral arguments have demonstrated that Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh hold "moderate" views on how broadly to rule in favor of expanding the scope of gun rights constitutional protections.

[Jeepergeo]

I CAN'T HEAR YOU. PLEASE TYPE IN ALL CAPS. I LOST MY HEARING BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE ONCE GREAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND COULD NOT GET A SUPPRESSOR BUT I CONTINUED TO SHOOT WITH JUST MUFFS.

[AlmostHeaven]

I CAN'T HEAR YOU. PLEASE TYPE IN ALL CAPS. I LOST MY HEARING BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE ONCE GREAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND COULD NOT GET A SUPPRESSOR BUT I CONTINUED TO SHOOT WITH JUST MUFFS.

The liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit would rule that if you had wanted to avoid hearing damage, you should have simply given up your guns.