Suppressors not NFA

[foggyandcold]

Looked for a thread didn’t see one. Gotta be one right?

heard suppressors won’t be nfa items per the Big Beautiful Bill. Fingers crossed!

nevermind delete, I see a thread now

[that one guy]

So what does this mean for us for here in CA

[GOEX FFF]

So what does this mean for us for here in CA

Zip, nada, zilch. And even if there did seem some pathway, Kalifornistan will seal it shut faster than chit through a goose.

[The Gleam]

So what does this mean for us for here in CA

We'll all go deaf faster than those who live in the United States.

---

[morrcarr67]

Looked for a thread didn’t see one. Gotta be one right?

heard suppressors won’t be nfa items per the Big Beautiful Bill. Fingers crossed!

nevermind delete, I see a thread now

The BBB won't help people in CA.

Though there are some other things going on that could help people in CA. The US DOJ has issued a brief in the Peterson case out of the 5th Circuit. In the brief they say that suppressors are indeed "arms" and are covered under the 2nd Amendment and can't be band. This brief can now be used in the Sanchez v. Bonta here in the 9th Circus.

If the 9th Circus doesn't apply what the US DOJ put in that brief, it would be a prime candidate to go up to the SCOTUS.

[oddball]

So what does this mean for us for here in CA

CA has proven solidly that it can and will restrict citizens from owning anything firearm related, including most semi-auto handguns and rifles. Hell, they won't let you own a Shockwave, which is not semi-auto and not an NFA restricted item.
Take it to the bank- if suppressors ever became a non NFA item, CA will still ban them.

[Preston-CLB]

Even if suppressors are deemed non-NFA and not banned in CA, there is still the problem that CA will never allow a useable threaded barrel to be legal in this state. CA gov't never met a 'common sense' gun law it didn't like.
-P

[acaligunner]

Looked for a thread didn’t see one. Gotta be one right?

heard suppressors won’t be nfa items per the Big Beautiful Bill. Fingers crossed!

nevermind delete, I see a thread now

🤣~ Bro really ?! This state does not care about gunners rights, and it’s amazing that they ( the higher ups ) will make us wait YEARS to bring our rights to court yet they take weeks ( bullet button / freedom week / open carry ) to strike down and make outlaw our 2nd amendment rights.

ca will never ( willingly ) give ca gunners any extra gun rights if they can help it - legally or not !

[Preston-CLB]

Ishootforblood. Thanks for the clarification. Like most things in CA...It's complicated.
-P

[Garbcollector]

So what does this mean for us for here in CA

Nothing...

[MountainLion]

The US DOJ has issued a brief in the Peterson case out of the 5th Circuit. In the brief they say that suppressors are indeed "arms" and are covered under the 2nd Amendment and can't be band..

In the US of A, laws (including the constitution) are made by legislatures, in some cases by the voters (referendums etc.), and to some extent modified or invalidated by courts. Administrative agencies (such as the DoJ) do not make law. What the DoJ writes may help persuade some judges, or some legislators. But in and of itself it has no legal meaning.

[walmart_ar15]

In the US of A, laws (including the constitution) are made by legislatures, in some cases by the voters (referendums etc.), and to some extent modified or invalidated by courts. Administrative agencies (such as the DoJ) do not make law. What the DoJ writes may help persuade some judges, or some legislators. But in and of itself it has no legal meaning.

A bit of gray here. Agency can provide "Regulation" if the authority is given in the Law. The regulations can provide clarity, processes, implementation, but need to follow the intent of the law and its original definition. Overtime, Agencies like to play legislature if not being watched.

DOJ can provide briefs, just like anyone who has a stake, for a court case. ATF can act as expert witness as they are considered as an expert in firearm technology. These actions can and will persuade judges on their decisions. The problem here is that the expert witness is also the regulatory body in the matter, definitely a conflict of interest.

[oddball]

Even if suppressors are deemed non-NFA and not banned in CA, there is still the problem that CA will never allow a useable threaded barrel to be legal in this state. CA gov't never met a 'common sense' gun law it didn't like.
-P

IF suppressors were re-classified as a non NFA item similar to gun accessories, or even as a 4473 item, you can bet big boy companies such as Glock, Ruger, Sig Sauer, S&W, etc. will get into the game. And if so, they will design and manufacture firearms with integrated suppressors. But CA will still ban them as "assault" features.

[mossy]

I can't wait. Moving to a freeish State in a few weeks. Being able to buy a tax free suppressor would be awesome.

[k1dude]

IF suppressors were re-classified as a non NFA item similar to gun accessories, or even as a 4473 item, you can bet big boy companies such as Glock, Ruger, Sig Sauer, S&W, etc. will get into the game.

Sig already makes suppressors.