PDA

View Full Version : Are Sound Suppressors considered "Dangerous Weapons" in CA?


goodlookin1
03-10-2012, 12:30 PM
Just like the title says.

From what I have gathered in my research, if one wanted to manufacture Sound Suppressors, one would need an 07 FFL with a Class II SOT, which would enable that person to manufacture Suppressors, MG's, SBR's, SBS's.....basically anything except DD's and DD Ammunition. This applies to all states on a Federal level. The 07 FFL license costs $150 for 3 years and probably some other fees like finger printing, registration, etc. Then a first time Class II SOT license is $500 for all 07 FFL's bringing in under $500,000 in yearly revenue of ALL business, or $1000 for anything over $500,000 in annual revenue. Furthermore, from everything I have read, it appears that the law requires all MANUFACTURERS of weapon-related materials to register with ITAR, even if you are not exporting anything outside the USA.....this is an additional $2,250/year at the moment.

However, then there is the CA DOJ. They require special permits for anything dealing with NFA or CA AW controlled ordnance. A "Dangerous Weapons" permit is required for (most?) NFA items. CA DOJ does bi-yearly inspections: One that is scheduled, and one surprise inspection visit, just to make sure you are following their rules as well. However, this is where I get fuzzy on the details: Everything I read points to very strict requirements for DD's, MG's, SBR's, and SBS's. But there wasnt much detail on Suppressors and AOW's.

My question: Are Sound Suppressors considered "Dangerous Weapons", requiring the CA Dangerous Weapons Permit to manufacture? Are they as strictly regulated by the CA DOJ as are MG's and the like, or do they not require the CA DWP to manufacture?

Any help would be appreciated. I want to make sure I understand all the components before jumping into such a venture, signing my life away to surprise inspections and intrusive gov't control.

Thanks.

dustoff31
03-10-2012, 12:44 PM
Under CA law, except for LE, military, and legit manufacturers, supressors are prohibited period in CA. There is no permit available.

Are you asking about for your own use, or is there a permit for others to buy suppressors that you manufacture?

bigcalidave
03-10-2012, 12:51 PM
I think he is asking if he needs an additional permit to become a legit manufacturer.

goodlookin1
03-10-2012, 1:09 PM
I think he is asking if he needs an additional permit to become a legit manufacturer.

Correct.

Not for my own personal use (although I suppose I would get that too), but for a business in selling Suppressors to out of state "free" people, mil and LEO.

I realize there is no license for a Suppressor in this state for a citizen, but it might fall under the Dangerous Weapons restriction....I mean, how does Hollywood get them? Manufacturers or Resellers? There IS a way (as a business), I guess what I'm asking is, what additional CA restrictions are there for Suppressors for Manufacturers, and under what branch/law/license/registration scheme are they governed?

Thanks.

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 1:15 PM
Check out Jason Davis' posts (#25, #28) in this thread from a few hours ago.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=545801

He went over this pretty much exactly.

EBR Works
03-10-2012, 4:19 PM
There is no additional California regulation for 07FFL/SOT holders. Following ATF procedure we can manufacture, buy and resell suppressors to non-California residents or LE. It should be this way for SBR, SBS and MG as well.

winnre
03-10-2012, 5:43 PM
I wonder how many crimes have been committed with registered AOWs? If low then we can reasonably argue that suppressors will not increase crime.

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 5:51 PM
I wonder how many crimes have been committed with registered AOWs? If low then we can reasonably argue that suppressors will not increase crime.

Registered AOW's would be a very different thing from suppressors so I'm not sure the argument follows from one to the other. Besides courts shouldn't (and we wouldn't want them to) be engaging in a cost benefit analysis. They should be deciding on the legal merits of whatever issue is at hand.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk