PDA

View Full Version : has their been a lawsuit against the suppressor ban?


mag360
03-09-2012, 3:40 PM
so we can't have silencers in CA because they have been banned for decades, but has there been any attempts to sue the state and overturn? Any prior legislative attempts? I thik if it is billed properly with all "sportsmans" support it could go somewhere.


in regards to "what do I want the crpa to do?" I want them to get me a darn silencer!

Crom
03-09-2012, 4:22 PM
No lawsuits I know of. And not anytime soon IMO. At this time the legislature will not help us. Agree on the sportsman thing.

OleCuss
03-09-2012, 4:28 PM
Firmly establish that there is a right to keep and bear arms and that training with a firearm is also core to the right.

Then go after the firearm muffler ban as a health matter (saving our hearing and thus increasing our productivity and decreasing health care costs) and just being polite. I'm not sure how you'd do that in court but in a few years it may actually be possible to do it through the legislature (not holding my breath on that one).

But I think it is stupid that I have to run unnecessary risks of damaging my hearing in order to do the proper training to exercise my RKBA.

Kid Stanislaus
03-09-2012, 4:34 PM
But I think it is stupid that I have to run unnecessary risks of damaging my hearing in order to do the proper training to exercise my RKBA.

Try a set of custom made ear plugs. ;)

Drivedabizness
03-09-2012, 4:44 PM
At some point the jist of a lawsuit in CA will be that the State imposes a level of hostility to the 2A rights of its citizens that is not permissible. A key element will be to demolish the "we're only doing it to promote our legitimate interest in public safety" argument. Laws that infringe only on the law-abiding cannot be expected to serve a meaningful role in reducing crime.

That said, I wouldn't make plans on having a suppressor any time soon.

Californio
03-09-2012, 4:58 PM
My BIL just emailed that the AZ Assembly voted to allow hunting with a suppressor, went to the Senate. He likes to rub it in that he has a Suppressed SBR and may soon be able to hunt with it.

OleCuss
03-09-2012, 5:03 PM
Try a set of custom made ear plugs. ;)

Got those several years ago. But yeah, it's pretty effective.

One problem, however. I already have some hearing loss and when I put those suckers in I'm not going to hear the rangemaster. I don't have the property to have my own range. . .

Dreaded Claymore
03-09-2012, 5:04 PM
Right now, carry license reform is at the top of CGF's list, as far as I know. Carry law is the law that most restricts our right to bear arms. With things like the "Safe" Hangun Roster, the semi-auto ban, and the NFA ban, you're restricted in your choices of what firearm you can have. But "may issue" carry licensing prevents you from having any firearm at all, unless you're inside your house.

Once we get "shall issue" carry, CGF will be able to devote more resources to things like detachable magazines, suppressors, and magazine capacity restrictions.

mag360
03-09-2012, 5:05 PM
the counter argument should not be "just wear ear plugs" we need it to be what drivedabizness said, that they fulfill a goal only of infringing on our 2A rights.

VaderSpade
03-09-2012, 5:19 PM
Try a set of custom made ear plugs. ;)

That doesn't help my neighbors. Everyone shoots up in my neck of the woods. Neighbors are all about 1/2 mile apart, but I can still tell you there are times when my neighbors shooting bothers me, and I know there are times when I'm sure mine bothers them. Suppressors are just the neighborly thing to have. :)

They make you muffle your trucks, and bikes, you can't play your music too loud. There is no end to the things they tell you to keep quite, but you can't quite your guns WTH?????????

VaderSpade
03-09-2012, 5:23 PM
Plus, if I have the right to defend myself I may not have time to put my earplugs in. Why should I suffer hearing loss because I had to shoot some scum that meant me harm? If I miss he could sue me for his hearing loss. ;)

stix213
03-09-2012, 5:32 PM
A good number of court wins will need to happen before we get to suppressors unfortunately....

huntercf
03-09-2012, 5:59 PM
Oh how I wish, for someone like me who has some hearing loss it would be nice to keep what is left of it awhile longer and still exercise my 2A rights.

OleCuss
03-09-2012, 6:06 PM
A good number of court wins will need to happen before we get to suppressors unfortunately....

I think virtually all of us agree with you on that.

I guess I can't speak for the others, but I consider this to be a venting thread. It's a stupid law which causes problems rather than solving them.

ClarenceBoddicker
03-09-2012, 6:23 PM
Who knows. It's odd to me that people so involved in gun ownership rights don't even know when these bans went into effect. Without understanding the history of a law, there is little chance of getting it overturned. You would think that there would be an online resource with history of all the CA anti gun laws. It's hard enough finding info on all the older Federal anti gun laws.

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 6:25 PM
so we can't have silencers in CA because they have been banned for decades, but has there been any attempts to sue the state and overturn? Any prior legislative attempts? I thik if it is billed properly with all "sportsmans" support it could go somewhere.


in regards to "what do I want the crpa to do?" I want them to get me a darn silencer!

Not yet

Connor P Price
03-09-2012, 6:48 PM
I have scar tissue on my eardrums from childhood surgeries and I may have begun to develop some tinnitus over the past few years. I would certainly benefit from using suppressors, especially if I'm ever forced to use a firearm indoors in a defensive situation where I can't get ear protection on.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

nicki
03-09-2012, 8:33 PM
Thanks to Hollywood and TV, people think silencers are whisper quiet and that the only people who would need a "silencer" would be a "hitman".

The reality is suppressors don't make guns whisper quiet, what they do is lower the decibel level to where a gun could be fired without massive hearing loss.

Since the public believes that silencers are whisper quiet, rather than trying to attack public opinion head on, I think we should take a different approach and seek to only legalize "Sound Suppressors".

Where we make the distinction is with decibel levels. I know that gun shots typically are at least 130dbs or greater. Most suppressors don't reduce the noise to under 100 db. So we use public ignorance for our gain.

If a device lowers decibel levels below say 85 dbs, then it is a "silencer", if the decibels are above 85 dbs with common commercial ammo, then it is a "sound suppressor".

"Sound Suppressors" would be removed from the NFA since they are well suited for both self defense and sporting purposes.

See, this way we can separate those evil hitman silencers that make those 10 dollar saturday night special revolvers whisper quiet while only seeking to make legal sound suppressors that modestly lower gunshot noise.

After all, someone defending themselves in their home shouldn't have to risk losing not only their hearing, but the hearing of family members because of excessive noise.

BTW, we should also go after the threaded feature of the AW bans since that would eliminate our ability to safely attack a "Suppressor".

Nicki

cal3gunner
03-09-2012, 8:52 PM
...

cal3gunner
03-09-2012, 8:59 PM
///

proclone1
03-09-2012, 10:15 PM
Got those several years ago. But yeah, it's pretty effective.

One problem, however. I already have some hearing loss and when I put those suckers in I'm not going to hear the rangemaster. I don't have the property to have my own range. . .

Sounds like some electric earmuffs are in order! The Howard Leight ones for $60 at amazon have good reviews, but do your best to try some on before you buy, because a lot of people find that they don't cup the bottom of their ears well (including me) I went with Peltor 6S's for the same price on amazon.

locosway
03-10-2012, 1:55 AM
in regards to "what do I want the crpa to do?" I want them to get me a darn silencer!

:rofl2: Now that's some funny stuff right there...

Lugiahua
03-10-2012, 2:16 AM
To me, suppressor ban was not as annoy as threaded barrel ban...
to ban threaded barrel because it's possible to attach a suppressor(which should be legal either) is complete ridiculous.

It's like banning matches and lighter because the tiny possibility of using them for crime.

winnre
03-10-2012, 3:19 AM
Silencers are legal in more places than you think!


http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/silencer_map.gif

JasonDavis
03-10-2012, 8:14 AM
You can get them here too, you just have to get a nfa mfg license from the Feds.

locosway
03-10-2012, 8:19 AM
You can get them here too, you just have to get a nfa mfg license from the Feds.

Don't you also have to notify the CADOJ each time you "demo" the unit and for which agency you're doing the "demo" for?

Maestro Pistolero
03-10-2012, 8:48 AM
Firmly establish that there is a right to keep and bear arms and that training with a firearm is also core to the right.
Agreed.
Then go after the firearm muffler ban as a health matter (saving our hearing and thus increasing our productivity and decreasing health care costs) and just being polite. . .
And from a noise pollution viewpoint. You could have a suppressed-only range in proximity to a residential area without creating a nuisance.
But I think it is stupid that I have to run unnecessary risks of damaging my hearing in order to do the proper training to exercise my RKBA.. . . or indeed to be forced to trade your hearing or your children's hearing for your lives in a home defense shooting.

In my case, it's a career ender.

JasonDavis
03-10-2012, 8:50 AM
Don't you also have to notify the CADOJ each time you "demo" the unit and for which agency you're doing the "demo" for?

Here is the law on "silencers" in California with the manufacture provision emphasized in bold:

33410. Any person, firm, or corporation who within this state
possesses a silencer is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h)
of Section 1170 or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars
($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.



33415. Section 33410 shall not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(a) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of silencers by
agencies listed in Section 830.1, or the military or naval forces of
this state or of the United States, for use in the discharge of their
official duties.
(b) The possession of silencers by regular, salaried, full-time
peace officers who are employed by an agency listed in Section 830.1,
or by the military or naval forces of this state or of the United
States, when on duty and when the use of silencers is authorized by
the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(c) The manufacture, possession, transportation, or sale or other
transfer of silencers to an entity described in subdivision (a) by
dealers or manufacturers registered under Chapter 53 (commencing with
Section 5801) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the
regulations issued pursuant thereto.

And, to the best of my knowledge, there are no California regulations on point. Further, I do not believe that the DOJ has authority to issue regulations or otherwise regulate "silencers" under the current statutory structure.

As such, the only record keeping requirements (outside of keeping your license available for the DOJ and other law enforcement to prove your exempt status) are federal.

r3dn3ck
03-10-2012, 9:30 AM
so what's wisconsin's story? Surrounded by stupidity but suppressors are ok.

1859sharps
03-10-2012, 9:37 AM
so we can't have silencers in CA because they have been banned for decades, but has there been any attempts to sue the state and overturn? Any prior legislative attempts? I thik if it is billed properly with all "sportsmans" support it could go somewhere.


in regards to "what do I want the crpa to do?" I want them to get me a darn silencer!

My two cents...low, low priority. not being able to own and use a "silencer" really isn't a infringement to my 2nd amendment rights. not like the handgun roster is, or the fact I can't get a LTC or buy a magazine over 10 rounds or I can't buy a non "neutered" semi auto rifle/shotgun or pass on to my kids a legally owned and registered "assault weapon" or even being able to buy and use full auto firearms.

"silencers"..nice to have, but not critical agenda item at this time. just my two cents.

Kyle1886
03-10-2012, 9:48 AM
If suppressors reduce decible level by 30-40 decibles depending on vendor, how will that effect cities that have "gunshot locators"? Since I can only assume that they "react" on decible level or perhaps pitch,...

Will that be a factor in any legislation concerning suppressors/silencers?

Respectfully
Kyle

mag360
03-10-2012, 10:09 AM
I would say it is extremely important and critical to protect your hearing.

we have at least a right to use a firearm to defend yourself in your house in CA.

you have a right to be safe in your house.

without a supressor you can sustain permanent hearing loss due to exercising a fundamental right to defend yourself.

the anti's will throw out the same arguments of "but what about the crime component?"

we just hammer on the health implications and noise pollution benefits at the range. A suppressor just seems like a no-brainer when you lay out the facts.

winnre
03-10-2012, 11:22 AM
We need to remove mufflers from cars since cars kill more people than guns.

mag360
03-10-2012, 11:31 AM
that is where the anti logic breaks down. "but what if just one life was saved by taking mufflers off cars".

not allowing a suppressor is like saying you have a 1st amendment right to free speech, but if you attempt to use it, you could have irreparable voice or brain damage that would prevent further writing.

winnre
03-10-2012, 11:32 AM
I guess the right to free speech does not include the volume level.

motorhead
03-10-2012, 12:16 PM
all those hearing protection arguments sound real nice but the fact remains, nfa items are percieved as evil and easily portrayed as such by the media. you have to remember, laws aren't always based on facts. look at "evil features". hopefully, SOMEDAY, reason will prevail. today aint that day.

bohoki
03-10-2012, 12:20 PM
yea it is a little bit like a law that requires buttstocks covered with tacks

you are allowed to wear a shoulder pad but that requires you to wear something instead of say putting a pad on the butt

but it stands because its your choice to use the firearm no one is requiring you use one

Maestro Pistolero
03-10-2012, 2:04 PM
When the time is right, a strong argument is that anti-suppressor laws require individuals to be subject to and endure permanent and debilitating injury if exercising the core right of self defense in the home (where the right is most acute, etc).

Kyle1886
03-10-2012, 2:28 PM
if exercising the core right of self defense in the home (where the right is most acute, etc).[/B]

Maestro, could that lead to just limited use,..."Okay you can have a suppressor in the home but unlawful elsewhere..." Or am I overthinking that.

Respectfully
Kyle

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 2:30 PM
When the time is right, a strong argument is that anti-suppressor laws require individuals to be subject to and endure permanent and debilitating injury if exercising the core right of self defense in the home (where the right is most acute, etc).

A LOT needs to happen between now and then, but I see the above as completely correct. Furthermore if suppressors are protected through a lawsuit along these lines the NFA becomes vulnerable to an attack as a tax on the exercise of a fundamental right.

VaderSpade
03-10-2012, 2:41 PM
We need to remove mufflers from cars since cars kill more people than guns.

That makes sense, he would have heard the car coming and would have been able to get out of the road!

winnre
03-10-2012, 3:11 PM
So those cases where a spouse murders the other by putting a pillow over their head and the gun against the pillow... are they charge with illegally manufacturing a suppressor as well as murder?

And I regularly use very silent ammo in my back yard (22LR). If you are in the house you hear nothing. So silent ammo is legal. For now.

Maestro Pistolero
03-10-2012, 3:15 PM
Maestro, could that lead to just limited use,..."Okay you can have a suppressor in the home but unlawful elsewhere..." Or am I overthinking that.

Respectfully
Kyle

Yes. In exactly the way Heller led to the Woolard decision. ;)

cal3gunner
03-10-2012, 7:05 PM
...

Warrior King
03-10-2012, 7:52 PM
The law should be challenged on the grounds that a complete ban is contrary to the public good. If guns are a right and legal then gun owners should be able with regulation to modulate to some degree gun noise to protect the shooter and public.

There could be a CA approved suppressor for example that reduces the high impulse noise of rifles and guns to say just below a .22lr so it is detectable but not a nuisance or hazard. A ban on suppression technology is like a ban on a trigger safety.

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 7:59 PM
The law should be challenged on the grounds that a complete ban is contrary to the public good.

And that lawsuit would be summarily dismissed because the theory isn't legally tenable.

Losing sucks. Let's not make that our objective.

-Brandon

Warrior King
03-10-2012, 9:17 PM
And that lawsuit would be summarily dismissed because the theory isn't legally tenable.

Losing sucks. Let's not make that our objective.

-Brandon

The theory relates to restrictions that are designed to make it impossible to exercise a right without harming self or others thereby severely curtailing or denying people of their constitutional rights. Examples of restrictions that result in denial or suppression of constitutional rights that have been made illegal on the Federal level , would be literacy tests or poll taxes to prevent blacks from voting or other voter suppression measures like having police at the polls demanding ID etc.. The blanket ban on all silencers is a shooter/gun use "suppression" law, as mufflers on guns do have a beneficial role to play in protecting hearing and promoting recreational shooting and hunting.

Gun owners and the public should have the right to have access, and be protected by any regulated equipment that protects the shooter and the general public. Example. If an intruder enters my house why should I have to damage my hearing to defend my house and life? If a gun owner can use frangible ammo to protect family members from rounds that penetrate walls why cant a gun owner protect his own hearing or anyone near by?

The idea and assumption in CA that a gun should be by design so obnoxious to the operator and everyone around the operator that its use will be discouraged or banned, or result in harm to the user or anyone around the user is just retarded and needs to be challenged.

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 9:44 PM
I'm disengaging. It's been too long of a week to be as patient as replying to your post would require. Good luck with that lawsuit.

-Brandon

locosway
03-10-2012, 9:50 PM
The law should be challenged on the grounds that a complete ban is contrary to the public good. If guns are a right and legal then gun owners should be able with regulation to modulate to some degree gun noise to protect the shooter and public.

There could be a CA approved suppressor for example that reduces the high impulse noise of rifles and guns to say just below a .22lr so it is detectable but not a nuisance or hazard. A ban on suppression technology is like a ban on a trigger safety.

Knowing California they'd go the extra step and require "mufflers" on all handguns to discourage people from carrying them.

mag360
03-10-2012, 10:04 PM
Going back to the historical part, how and why was this never challenged all these years? This isn't like the magazine capacity ban thats been standing for 12 years, it's been around for what, 80, 85 years?

The relevant sections are:

12500 thru 12520 Silencers

CHAPTER 5. FIREARM DEVICES
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
12500. The term "silencer" as used in this chapter means any device or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm. The term "silencer" also includes any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling a silencer or fabricating a silencer and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
12501. Section 12520 shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(a) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of silencers by agencies listed in Section 830.1, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.
(b) The possession of silencers by regular, salaried, full-time peace officers who are employed by an agency listed in Section 830.1, or by the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States when on duty and when the use of silencers is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(c) The manufacture, possession, transportation, or sale or other transfer of silencers to an entity described in subdivision (a) by dealers or manufacturers registered under Chapter 53 (commencing with Section 5801) of Title 26 of the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
ARTICLE 2. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM SILENCERS
12520. Any person, firm, or corporation who within this state possesses a silencer is guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both.

Warrior King
03-10-2012, 10:15 PM
Going back to the historical part, how and why was this never challenged all these years? This isn't like the magazine capacity ban thats been standing for 12 years, it's been around for what, 80, 85 years?

Yes, and the science has changed on hearing loss during the last 80 years.

Also, many of the people who shot guns for the last 50 years without mufflers and hearing protection are now deaf, including many WWII vets who were in combat.

When those laws were put into place most people died around the time cumulative damage to their hearing made them deaf. People are living longer and should not have to put their hearing at risk or pay huge taxes to protect it to exercise their right to bear arms.

The laws were enacted after sensational gang land killings with silencers, and are outdated. The federal silencer laws and state laws should not be so broad as to make it impossible for shooters to muffle the dangerous high impulse noise to safer levels.

Warrior King
03-10-2012, 10:26 PM
Knowing California they'd go the extra step and require "mufflers" on all handguns to discourage people from carrying them.

If this had not been a no go area since the 1920's the industry would have developed handguns with sound mufflers integrated into the way the barrel is manufactured or something similar rather than after market.

winnre
03-10-2012, 10:50 PM
Suppressor bans were originally so you could not poach IIRC.

Warrior King
03-10-2012, 11:23 PM
Suppressor bans were originally so you could not poach IIRC.


Yeah but now lots of technology that is now cheap and portable, such as low noise sound sensors, infra red and heat sensing optics, and advanced shot detection finders, which can detect poachers. The people breaking the law poaching and hit men are going to use silencers anyways so what is the point in keeping them from legal shooters?