SilencerCo + California?

[Scratch705]

Someone on the Calguns FB page actually called Silencerco (See? I told you they answer thier phone!) and was told "All CA sales are suspended as of right now. Their words " There has been some legal kickbacks. We are working on. We will announce on our newsletter when CA sales will resume."

So here is to hoping you poor bastages behind enemy lines receive relief soon..

Upon my return to TN I will fire a silent shot in your honor..

oh, so the armchair internet lawyer was correct in that this product is not CA legal.

maybe silencerco should pay some of these CA armchair lawyers as it seems lawyers outside of CA doesn't understand our convoluted gun laws.

[CSACANNONEER]

Actually I really do believe anyone outside of California over the average California gun owner/armchair lawyer. You guys are defeatists who are perfectly OK with the way things are and do not support those who work towards change.

I got sloppy and misread your post, you are correct, I had ASSumed the can would be welded shut, but it appears not to be. However, taking it apart will not constitute owning an illegal suppressor as the baffle or other bits would not necessarily constitute the manufacture of a suppressor.

Well, if you look on their FB page, you'll see others have stated that these are illegal in other states as well. So, I guess you believe lawyers in those other states, right? If so, I guess you'll admit that SC's advertising is misleading at best and blatantly false irresponsible, unethical and possibly criminal at worst.

Actually if you read SC's own website, you'll find the ATF opinion letter spelling out how disassembling the silencer would be illegal without the proper tax stamp. So, again, your assumption is incorrect.

Someone on the Calguns FB page actually called Silencerco (See? I told you they answer thier phone!) and was told "All CA sales are suspended as of right now. Their words " There has been some legal kickbacks. We are working on. We will announce on our newsletter when CA sales will resume."

So here is to hoping you poor bastages behind enemy lines receive relief soon..

Upon my return to TN I will fire a silent shot in your honor..

I did PM SC on FB hours ago citing CA PC and asking how it was legal here. They were online but, they did not answer me at all. They could have at least responded with, "we'll look into it" or something like that.

[dwalker]

oh, so the armchair internet lawyer was correct in that this product is not CA legal.

maybe silencerco should pay some of these CA armchair lawyers as it seems lawyers outside of CA doesn't understand our convoluted gun laws.

We will see. Not sure what the "kickback" is that Silencerco is talking about, and will wait to see what they have to say on the issue. Of course, you could call and ask...

[CSACANNONEER]

oh, so the armchair internet lawyer was correct in that this product is not CA legal.

maybe silencerco should pay some of these CA armchair lawyers as it seems lawyers outside of CA doesn't understand our convoluted gun laws.

Maybe they should just research and read every state's laws prior to claiming that something is legal in every state.

[DaveDurable]

Already Tried. No Dice

I tried ordering one this morning, and SilencerCo called me to tell me they are refunding my order. They said they already got legal push-back from CA. They said it had something to do with a part of CA law that specified anything that expels a projectile by means of an explosion as a "firearm," which is curious because I know that normal muzzle loaders can be bought cash and carry. It seems like CA firearms laws are intentionally made as convoluted as possible so they can be made to suit the State's desires when they want, but be interpreted as strictly as possible when it comes to bringing the hammer down on a citizen.

[CAL.BAR]

oh, so the armchair internet lawyer was correct in that this product is not CA legal.

maybe silencerco should pay some of these CA armchair lawyers as it seems lawyers outside of CA doesn't understand our convoluted gun laws.

Well, even ARMCHAIR lawyers in CA specialize in CA law. Attys in other states DON'T specialize in CA law.

[CSACANNONEER]

I tried ordering one this morning, and SilencerCo called me to tell me they are refunding my order. They said they already got legal push-back from CA. They said it had something to do with a part of CA law that specified anything that expels a projectile by means of an explosion as a "firearm," which is curious because I know that normal muzzle loaders can be bought cash and carry. It seems like CA firearms laws are intentionally made as convoluted as possible so they can be made to suit the State's desires when they want, but be interpreted as strictly as possible when it comes to bringing the hammer down on a citizen.

California's definition of "silencer" includes all firearms. California's definition of "firearm" includes LOADED antique arms and loaded muzzleloaders. So, the silencer is illegal in CA period because, it can be used with a loaded muzzleloader even though the muzzleloader isn't loaded. They did you a favor by refunding your money instead of just letting you do 10 years in State Prison after they sent you one.

[beanz2]

If they haven't already, CA will find a way to outlaw this. If they wont let us have nunchucks or throwing stars, they aren't gonna let us have this. Because they saw a bad guy use it in a movie once....

Agree. They have already passed legislation (AJR-24) to protest the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. Why won't they pass another to block the National Hearing Protection Act.

Some lib judge will also rule against it.

[DrScaryGuy]

Related:

In a free state, could an SOT make/pin/weld a "moderator" to a pre-1899 gun and sell it without a tax stamp?

We're debating that in MI right now as well because of this Maxim50
michigan law considers muzzle loaders to be firearms, with or without a silencer. we also had a ban on the Gamo Whisper type pellet rifles until recently, because they had integral silencers and MI law considered air rifles to be firearms. air rifles are de-listed as firearms now, so an integral silencer on a non-firearm is legal.
no idea how it's going to work out with this maxim50 - I think that because the law is written in a way that says that NFA items can be owned by a person permitted by the ATF to own "such items", we may be able to rely on our current NFA "stamp collections" to be the permission slip that lets us get the new toy.
Either way, gun parts are evolving WAY faster than gun laws. it's fun and interesting.

[RickD427]

However, Section 16170(b) of the PC states that the term "antique firearm" used in 16520 should be consider the same as the definition used in 18US 921... I'm going to copy and paste from another thread I posted in...

EDIT: After reading the thread linked by CSA above, I believe the arguments against the legality of the Maxim 50 is contingent on the fact that Section 16520 CAPC doesn't explicitly state that a loaded antique firearm is exempt from consideration as a firearm. However, if you reference Section 16170 of the PC as quoted below you will see...



The bolded section indicated that for the use of interpreting Section 16520 of the Ca PC, the definition of an "antique firearm" that in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code which reads as follows:



The bolded section states that the popular federal caveat that a "firearm" is not in fact a "firearm" if it does not use modern rimfire or centerfire ammunition.

Because of this, I'm having a hard time understanding why 16520 is related to 33410

All that 16170(b) does is incorporate the federal definition of "Antique Firearm" into California law.

All of my earlier postings were authored with the understanding that the Maxim 50 is an "Antique Firearm" under both California and Federal definitions.

Under federal law, an "Antique Firearm" is not a "Firearm." Please refer to 18 USC 921(a)(3)(D).

Under California law an "Antique Firearm" is a firearm, but, when unloaded, is exempt from specified sections of the Penal Code. Those exemptions do not include the section prohibiting silencers. Please refer to Penal Code section 16520(b).

Lets look at the text of the involved statutes:

PC 33410 Penalty for Possession of a Silencer - 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.

PC 17210 Definition of a Silencer - As used in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 33410) of Division 10 of Title 4, “silencer” 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 assembly or fabrication of a silencer.

The Maxim 50 is legal under federal law because the silencer is permanently attached to something that is not a firearm. The BATF decision letter posted on SilencerCo's website does a very good job of explaining this.


But under California law, the silencer is attached to something that is a firearm and that makes it illegal.

[Rusty_Shackleferd]

Welp, I got to feel like a free american for about 12 hours.

[onelonehorseman]

Welp, I got to feel like a free american for about 12 hours.

CA probably has a code making that illegal too!

Better turn yourself in for thinking that way

[NYT]

took about a day?

[Laurence927]

Not surprised. Good attempt, but product was DOA for CA customers.

[major burnout]

I think they are protected in San Francisco under the sanctuary city laws. Follow the law people.