SilencerCo + California?

[Scratch705]

Read my post above. They are legal to buy, sell, own and posses in CA but NOT LOAD!!!!

so a giant paperweight?

[CSACANNONEER]

It is not a firearm, so it is not an NFA suppressor, No FFL, No paperwork. California legal.
It is a muzzle loader

Under CA law, it IS a FIREARM when it is LOADED.

[CSACANNONEER]

so a giant paperweight?

Good for out of state hunts and novelty collecting.

[CSACANNONEER]

I'd also be concerned with how it disassembles to be cleaned and maintained. If you remove a part, you would have a part that could be used in a firearm silencer which could easily be illegal to posses.

[dwalker]

Read my post above. They are legal to buy, sell, own and posses in CA but NOT LOAD!!!!

I bet Silencerco's lawyers have already made sure it was OK to load, and shoot, in the state of CA.

[NYT]

Under CA law, it IS a FIREARM when it is LOADED.

would you point us to this law?

[Laurence927]

I'd also be concerned with how it disassembles to be cleaned and maintained. If you remove a part, you would have a part that could be used in a firearm silencer which could easily be illegal to posses.

https://silencerco.com/wp-content/th...nual-small.pdf Page 29.

[dwalker]

I'd also be concerned with how it disassembles to be cleaned and maintained. If you remove a part, you would have a part that could be used in a firearm silencer which could easily be illegal to posses.

I bet it is welded, which means it needs to soaked to clean. Many suppressor owners use a mixture of 50/50 peroxide and white vinegar or other solvents to dissolve lead and carbon residue in welded cans. It is actually very common.

I really like how when given a gift, the first thing the CA gun owner does is to shout out how wrong it is and how no one should see any light at the end of the tunnel. Honestly CA gun owners deserve all the craptastic laws you have on the books.

[dommypls]

Read my post above. They are legal to buy, sell, own and posses in CA but NOT LOAD!!!!

[RickD427]

The firearm looks like an in-line blackpowder muzzleloading rifle, which would be an "antique firearm" under CA laws.

Under CA "silencer" laws, there are no exemption for "antique firearms".
So, it would be illegal for an "antique firearm" to have a "silencer".



What is shown in the video is CA legal, because FFL/SOT are exempt from CA "silencer" laws [PC 33415(c)].

SilencerCo is a FFL/SOT, so it's CA legal for them to make a "silencer" commerical in CA.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

SilencerCo is spreading complete BS here, either because they're ill-informed as to California law, or because they want to sell their product here (they don't go to jail, their California customers do).

Their argument is that because the silencer is attached to a muzzleloader, that it is not a "firearm" and therefore not illegal. That's a good argument, and a correct one with regard to federal law. 18USC921 defines "firearm" to exclude "antique firearms." A muzzle loading weapon, even if recently manufactured, is defined as an antique firearm.

But argument don't work in California. California has opted to define what is a "firearm" differently, and has also gone so far as to define the term differently for different purposes. Please give a close read to Penal Code section 16520 for California's definition. California does exclude unloaded antique firearms from some, but not all, portions of the Penal Code. Silencers are prohibited under section 33410 and that section is not one where there is an antique firearm exception.

The same issue comes up from time to time when a prohibited person is arrested for possession of a black-powder weapon. Such weapons are exempt from statutes concerning their sale, but they are not exempt from statutes concerning their possession by prohibited persons.

[RickD427]

Sorry (but I glad), I think you're wrong. Sure, there is no exemption for "antique firearms" however, the definition of "firearm" does not include:



So, these would be perfectly legal to OWN and POSSESS in CA as long as they are not "loaded" per CA's definition of "loaded".

CSACANNONEER,

It took me a while to write my above post, and it looks like you posted during that time and started some good discussion.

I would have to argue that Penal Code section 33410 prohibits the simple possession of the SilencerCo product irrespective of whether it is attached to a weapon or not.

This is another instance where Federal Law and California Law define the term differently, and with different application to the SilencerCo product.

[RickD427]

You get there through the combined effects of Penal Code sections 16170, 16520 and 26500.

[dwalker]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

SilencerCo is spreading complete BS here, either because they're ill-informed as to California law, or because they want to sell their product here (they don't go to jail, their California customers do).

Their argument is that because the silencer is attached to a muzzleloader, that it is not a "firearm" and therefore not illegal. That's a good argument, and a correct one with regard to federal law. 18USC921 defines "firearm" to exclude "antique firearms." A muzzle loading weapon, even if recently manufactured, is defined as an antique firearm.

But argument don't work in California. California has opted to define what is a "firearm" differently, and has also gone so far as to define the term differently for different purposes. Please give a close read to Penal Code section 16520 for California's definition. California does exclude unloaded antique firearms from some, but not all, portions of the Penal Code. Silencers are prohibited under section 33410 and that section is not one where there is an antique firearm exception.

The same issue comes up from time to time when a prohibited person is arrested for possession of a black-powder weapon. Such weapons are exempt from statutes concerning their sale, but they are not exempt from statutes concerning their possession by prohibited persons.

I bet Silencerco has better lawyers that have made certain thier claim that it is valid. I mean, if you really wanted to do something to sort it out you could just call and ask, they are nice people, and generally answer thier phones promptly.

*Note that I do not own a Silencerco can, or any of thier other products, not because I would not want to, but because I just happened to like the SRT and Gemtech products a little better. Still they are good people fighting the good fight while MANY other suppressor manufacturers are silently withholding support for the HPA and other efforts to deregulate suppressors because those manufacturers feel like their product markup will be diminished if just anybody can buy one. Silencerco and some others are fighting for YOUR RIGHT to own a muffler for your gun so you can shoot without going deaf or having the Sheriff called when you want to go shoot out in the woods.

They deserve our support, not derision and apathy.

[solipsism]

Glad to see SilencerCo is sticking it to CA and the NFA.

[nedro]

9/19/2017?

Something related to this company is going to happen Tuesday?

So...Waaa Haaapin?