Suppressor question

[Zamble]

I know they are a felony to own in this state. But if they are removed from the NFA, does that change their CA classification?

[1911su16b870]

Good question. No one really knows how things will shake out, other than the legislature and associates here in CA have an overt agenda to get rid of all things gun.

Currently the Penal Code in CA does not support their individual ownership. You need an 01/07 FFL with a BATF SOT to have them.

[bernieb90]

Lets look at it this way. A 30 round magazine is legal in nearly every state in the country. In fact so are 100 round Beta-C mags. They are illegal here. States have the right to regulate items beyond what is written in federal law. The only time a state can't create laws that are stricter than federal laws is in cases when those laws are determined to be unconstitutional by a Federal court.

If suppressors drop off the NFA list and the California ban is challenged in court, and it is determined to be unconstitutional then we get suppressors.

[dwalker]

The thing with suppressors is they are not a firearm and so not really covered by the 2nd amendment. They are however a very key piece in the noise control and pollution issues we currently face. It is very interesting that you are breaking the law to operate a vehicle without a muffler, even outside of city limits and will be cited for it. Same goes for industrial equipment. Run a dyno or heavy saw and see how fast codes show up. However something that reduces noise and is REQUIRED in many countries to be able to shoot is outlawed in many areas and tightly controlled by the NFA through the ATF based one conditions that no longer apply- the poaching of game on a large scale- as modern poachers are perfectly happy to use illegal suppressors or archery equipment to do thier work.

[bernieb90]

Firearms are not the only thing covered in 2A. The word "arms" is very general meaning all weapons, and accessories needed to properly serve in a well equipped militia. Therefore weapons that are are currently available to the modern individual soldier such as their rifle, and sidearm, and any accessories needed to use them properly would be protected under 2A. Suppressors are routinely used by military, and Law Enforcement to reduce noise, and improve mission effectiveness. It is like saying they can keep their muskets, but we can take their ramrods because a ramrod is not a firearm.

[dwalker]

I like your outlook, but the fact is a suppressor is not a firearm anymore than a bayonet is. Its not protected by the 2nd unfortunately.
I am fortunate enough to live where I own cans, and I really ecommend anyone who can own them indulge themselves, because they make shooting a lot more enjoyable.

[SheepDog78]

You all seem to be overlooking the very reason suppressors are outlawed here in the first place. If they allow us to have suppressors, innocent people will be getting shot left and right, and everybody will get away with it because nobody will hear the shots and won't be able to tell where they came from. Everybody knows a suppressed pistol is about as loud as a mouse fart. Nobody wants a citizenry of silent hitmen.

Come on , start thinking like a Californian!

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[big jim]

Sorry dwalker firearms are not the only thing covered. See Caetano v Massachusetts. Now having said that no having something removed from a federal prohibition does nothing to the states prohibition

[dwalker]

You all seem to be overlooking the very reason suppressors are outlawed here in the first place. If they allow us to have suppressors, innocent people will be getting shot left and right, and everybody will get away with it because nobody will hear the shots and won't be able to tell where they came from. Everybody knows a suppressed pistol is about as loud as a mouse fart. Nobody wants a citizenry of silent hitmen.

Come on , start thinking like a Californian!

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Suppressors were regulated because at the time there was a very real fear of widespread poaching by folks using them with a very undermanned Forestry service and a lot of states with no F&G enforcement. Now things have changed and there is no real reason they are on the list other than to annoy firearms owners.

[Quiet]

I know they are a felony to own in this state. But if they are removed from the NFA, does that change their CA classification?

Nope.

CA's ban on silencers was in effect before the NFA became Federal law.

[dwalker]

Nope.

CA's ban on silencers was in effect before the NFA became Federal law.

CA banned suppressors prior to 1934?

[zapatito92]

Firearms are not the only thing covered in 2A. The word "arms" is very general meaning all weapons, and accessories needed to properly serve in a well equipped militia. Therefore weapons that are are currently available to the modern individual soldier such as their rifle, and sidearm, and any accessories needed to use them properly would be protected under 2A. Suppressors are routinely used by military, and Law Enforcement to reduce noise, and improve mission effectiveness. It is like saying they can keep their muskets, but we can take their ramrods because a ramrod is not a firearm.

Slingshots are already illegal in major cities like San Francisco.

Only a matter of time before they reach the rest of us

brass knuckles are already a no go, and recently composite knuckles were outlawed too

[zapatito92]

beware the brass knuckle army and the slingshot sharp shooter !

[sigstroker]

Slingshots are already illegal in major cities like San Francisco.

Only a matter of time before they reach the rest of us

brass knuckles are already a no go, and recently composite knuckles were outlawed too

If you look at the list of stuff you CAN'T have, it's astounding. Collapsible batons, sap gloves (whatever those are), shurikens (which makes you wonder about all those movies and tv shows with them, filmed in Hollyweird), etc.

[Quiet]

CA banned suppressors prior to 1934?

They did it during the 1920s.