California Rifle & Pistol Association Joins The Fight To Legalize Suppressors!

Opinion

California Rifle & Pistol Association is excited to announce its support of a lawsuit challenging California’s ban on suppressors, Sanchez v. Bonta.

The lawsuit, started by a pro se litigant, is now in the Ninth Circuit and will decide the critical question of whether suppressors are “arms” and thus subject to the full historical analysis laid out in Heller and Bruen. This case has far-reaching implications for several other cases that the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has been fighting in the courts for years.

Mr. Sanchez’s lawsuit started because he wanted to create and use a 3D-printed suppressor. He applied for federal authorization to do so but was denied because suppressors are illegal in California. He filed suit, but the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, erroneously concluding that suppressors are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are not themselves weapons, nor are they essential to the operation of a firearm.

Sanchez v. Bonta Backgrounder:

Case Name: Sanchez v. Bonta
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Case Number: 3:24-cv-00767
Filed Date: April 29, 2024
Judge: District Judge Robert S. Huie
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Second Amendment Challenge
Status: Dismissed on August 28, 2024, with an appeal filed on September 6, 2024.

Case Overview

Sanchez v. Bonta is a constitutional challenge brought by Gary R. Sanchez against Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, in his official capacity. The lawsuit primarily contests California Penal Code § 33410, which prohibits the possession of firearm suppressors (also known as silencers). Sanchez argues that this restriction violates his Second Amendment rights.

Plaintiff’s Claims

Sanchez asserts that the ban on suppressors is unconstitutional under the precedent set by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). His argument follows the Bruen standard, which requires firearm regulations to align with the historical tradition of gun laws between 1791 and 1868. He contends:

• Firearm suppressors should be considered “arms” under the Second Amendment, just as First Amendment protections extend to digital speech and modern communication tools.
• There is no historical analogue for banning suppressors during the relevant historical period.
• Since suppressors are overwhelmingly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including hearing protection and reducing noise pollution, their prohibition lacks constitutional justification.

Legal Proceedings

• April 29, 2024 – Sanchez files the lawsuit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the suppressor ban.
• June 24, 2024 – Attorney General Bonta moves to dismiss the case, arguing that the suppressor ban is a valid public safety regulation and does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
• August 28, 2024 – The court grants Bonta’s motion to dismiss, finding that suppressors are not explicitly protected as “arms” under the Second Amendment and that the law serves a valid state interest.
• September 6, 2024 – Sanchez files an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the district court’s dismissal.

Key Legal Issues

1. Are firearm suppressors protected under the Second Amendment?

   • The plaintiff argues yes, citing that accessories essential to effective firearm use should be considered protected “arms.”
   • The state argues no, stating that suppressors are not necessary for self-defense and can be restricted without violating constitutional rights.

2. Did California’s suppressor ban exist in historical precedent?

   • Under Bruen, modern firearm regulations must have a historical basis. Sanchez contends no such laws existed in the relevant period.
   • The state claims that public safety concerns provide a sufficient historical rationale for restricting suppressors.

Current Status & Outlook

The case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals under case number 24-5566. If the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal, the case could be remanded for further proceedings. If the appeal is denied, Sanchez may seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where Are We At Now?

Mr. Sanchez appealed, and after the briefing was completed, on February 3, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that it was inclined to appoint counsel to represent Mr. Sanchez in his appeal and set a new briefing schedule. This is a somewhat unusual move and strongly indicates the panel is looking to make this a precedential decision. We reached out to Mr. Sanchez to offer our assistance because of the broader implications that a case like this could have on the rights of all gun owners in the state.

As a result, California Rifle & Pistol Association’s lawyers at Michel & Associates will be joining Mr. Sanchez’s new legal team and will work to prepare new briefing alongside lawyers with the law firm of Cooper & Kirk. While it is always an uphill battle in the Ninth Circuit, we are excited for the opportunity to establish that suppressors are undoubtedly arms subject to the Second Amendment’s protection and bring these vital safety instruments one step closer to legality in California.

Hearing Protection Act Re-Introduced in 2025, NFA Reform

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Caught in Extensive Misuse of Criminal Database for Concealed Carry Checks

About California Rifle & Pistol Association

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), founded in 1875, is a nonprofit membership and donor-supported organization with tens of thousands of members throughout California. We need you!