18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

    Join freeLog in
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

Legal News U.S. House Advances Amendment to Repeal NFA Regulations on Firearm Suppressors

Is it?
Latest news
9mmContagion said:
If only it made a difference for us here :(
Click to expand...

Not advocating anyone pursue this, my comment is entirely speculative and for entertainment purposes ONLY.

Theoretically, if they are easier and cheaper to get in other states that will increase the availability on the black market, theoretically.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we could get a PPT type of deal like we have for handgun roster lol bring on the whiners about LEO charging too much for off roster pistols
 
Most likely for us here in California, we will get some sort of very brief "freedom week" here for suppressors. California forbids NFA items, so if items are removed, there's a brief window of relief and California will do everything they can to find clever ways to close the loop again.
 
skb720 said:
Most likely for us here in California, we will get some sort of very brief "freedom week" here for suppressors. California forbids NFA items, so if items are removed, there's a brief window of relief and California will do everything they can to find clever ways to close the loop again.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Are suppressors banned by name in CA or are they banned as NFA items?
 
21SF 2.0 said:
Are there any that attach without a threaded barrel?
Click to expand...
Yes, they have QD mounts.. but either way still banned by CA law. I suppose the case could be made that the law is unconstitutional, which I guarantee will be taken to court. But we all know the 9th circus
 
17210. 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.
 
skb720 said:
Most likely for us here in California, we will get some sort of very brief "freedom week" here for suppressors. California forbids NFA items, so if items are removed, there's a brief window of relief and California will do everything they can to find clever ways to close the loop again.
Click to expand...
No.
I believe the state legislature democrats will act prior to anything positive actually taking effect. And, we know well enough by now that when it finally winds up in court(s), any gains in our favor will likely benefit our grandchildren.
Please let me be wrong about this, but I’ve lived sixty years under the oppression of government, so as a result am jaded and cynical.
 
Suppressors are explicitly prohibited in California law, that's the PC 33410 mentioned above. This has nothing to do with NFA. There is no need for the state legislature to take any action, this is already the law, and has been for about 100 years. In those years, there has never been a successful court case challenging the constitutionality of that ban. Admittedly, before Heller and Bruen, such a case would have been harder to win. There is no "freedom week" window, and the federal government has very little influence over this.
 
The argument that hurt california on this matter was that California doesn’t view suppressors as arms, protected by the 2A. RECENTLY, the 5th circuit court of appeals case US v. Peterson, DOJ appear to change their position and said on record that suppressors merit 2a protection.

So I am not holding my breath but the landscape is drastically changing and if there ever was a time when suppressors were legalized in CA, this is the foundation for that.

Sanchez v Bonta may be the deciding factor for CA, with this 5th circuit case as persuasive argument.

 
toopoorformore said:
... DOJ appear to change their position and said on record that suppressors merit 2a protection.
Click to expand...
The federal DoJ can say many things, that doesn't make it the law. Before this has any hope of going somewhere, we need a court to agree that a suppressor is indeed an arm, and that hasn't happened yet.
 
I agree but if the DOJ (aka the government) says they’re firearms, and they are likely the witnesses testifying to their classification in a relevant court case, that’s very persuasive argument for the plaintiff(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom