California Suppressor Ban Faces Constitutional Challenge in Pivotal Sanchez v. Bonta Hearing

Gun rights advocates are reacting to a pivotal hearing that took place yesterday, as the Ninth Circuit weighed whether suppressors qualify as protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. The outcome could either bring California in line with 42 other states or set a troubling precedent for banning common firearm accessories.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on November 18, 2025, in the case of Sanchez v. Bonta, which challenges California’s sweeping ban on firearm suppressors. These devices reduce, but do not eliminate, the sound produced when a firearm is discharged.

Gary R. Sanchez, a California resident, initiated the lawsuit in April 2024 after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives denied his application to fabricate and register a suppressor, citing California Penal Code § 33410, which imposes a blanket prohibition on suppressor possession. Sanchez filed a complaint in the Southern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that California’s ban violates the Second Amendment.

The district court dismissed his complaint, ruling that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are “only” accessories, not “arms.” Sanchez appealed the decision on September 6, 2024. Recognizing the case’s significance, the California Rifle and Pistol Association enlisted Michel & Associates and Cooper & Kirk to assist Sanchez, and the Ninth Circuit agreed to accept both firms as counsel.

Dean Weingarten previously highlighted the Ninth Circuit’s hostility toward gun rights: “The Ninth Circuit has historically been one of the circuits most openly defying Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment.”

At stake is whether California’s suppressor ban can survive scrutiny under Supreme Court precedents including District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. Sanchez argues suppressors meet the “common use” standard established in these cases, as they are legal in 42 states and millions are possessed by law-abiding Americans.

In their replacement opening brief, Sanchez’s attorneys argue “Firearm suppressors—which reduce but do not eliminate the noise emitted from a firearm—support the safe and effective use of a firearm and are commonly used for lawful purposes in the United States. They are legal to possess in the vast majority of states, and millions are possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, including to prevent irreversible hearing damage from firearm use in training, self-defense, and hunting.”

The brief emphasizes suppressors’ self-defense utility, explaining “The hearing protection of a firearm outfitted with a suppressor serves critical self-defense functions, ensuring that an individual defending self, family, and home can prevent the temporary deafness or disorientation caused by a firearm blast. This allows an individual exercising the constitutional right to self-defense to hear an intruder and communicate effectively with family members and the authorities.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta counters that “Silencers are neither bearable ‘Arms’ nor integral components that are necessary for the operation of a firearm. They have no intrinsic self-defense purpose or utility in the case of confrontation.” His brief attempts to redefine the Second Amendment framework, replacing the “in common use for lawful purposes” standard with a narrower “commonly used for ordinary self-defense” test.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice recently signaled support for Second Amendment protection of suppressors, filing a brief in the Fifth Circuit case United States v. Peterson declaring silencers are arms protected by the Second Amendment. This creates potential for a circuit split if the Ninth Circuit rules against Sanchez.

Supporting data reinforces Sanchez’s position. A 2017 ATF White Paper concluded “Suppressors are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety.”

Sanchez’s brief notes the Supreme Court’s guidance that “The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” directly contradicting the district court’s categorical exclusion of accessories.

Weingarten framed the philosophical stakes clearly, writing “The two briefs represent two different visions of reality. The State of California’s vision is that the government is the source of all that is good, and the government should be all-powerful. There should not be any limitation on government power. Most people cannot make good decisions, so weapons in the hands of the people are a significant danger.” He contrasted this with Sanchez’s position representing “the vision of a limited government bound by the limits of the Constitution and dependent on the consent of the people for its existence. Guns in the hands of the people are a positive good to act as a limit on governmental abuse of power.”

Gun rights advocates should be deeply concerned about California’s attempt to create a new “commonly used for ordinary self-defense” standard requiring proof through police reports. If accepted, this framework could be weaponized against virtually any firearm accessory or even entire categories of firearms, effectively nullifying Heller and Bruen by making Second Amendment protection nearly impossible to prove.

During oral arguments before a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jay Bybee, Kenneth Lee, and John De Alba, Judge Kenneth Lee emerged as particularly critical of California’s position.

Judge Lee suggested that under California’s reasoning, “a state could justify taking and banning virtually anything related to guns based on the theoretical notion that a criminal can also use this and may help the criminal, even if there’s not instances of it.” This comment indicated skepticism toward the state’s approach and concern that California’s logic could be extended to ban a wide range of firearm accessories.

The panel composition is notable: Judge Bybee previously authored the 7-4 en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii holding there is no right to carry concealable weapons openly or concealed in public. Judge Lee, a 2019 Trump appointee, has shown more receptiveness to Second Amendment claims in past decisions. Judge De Alba is generally not considered favorable to Second Amendment arguments.

Because the case was dismissed at the district court level, the Ninth Circuit panel must determine whether there is any possibility that suppressors are arms protected by the Second Amendment. If so, the court must remand the case to the district court to allow Sanchez to amend his complaint.

The case has garnered significant attention because its outcome could affect not only suppressor regulations but also how courts analyze firearm accessories more broadly under the Bruen framework. A ruling that suppressors are protected arms would likely trigger challenges to suppressor bans in the seven other states that prohibit them–Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

Following the November 18, 2025 oral arguments in Pasadena, the court will issue a decision determining whether the district court erred in dismissing Sanchez’s complaint. The panel could: (1) affirm the dismissal if it concludes suppressors are not capable of Second Amendment protection; (2) reverse and remand for further proceedings if it finds suppressors are protected arms; or (3) reverse and remand with instructions depending on its analysis of both Bruen steps.

Given Judge Lee’s pointed questioning during oral argument and the recent shift in the federal government’s position recognizing suppressor protection, observers suggest the case may result in a favorable outcome for Sanchez, though predictions remain uncertain owing to the panel composition and the Ninth Circuit’s historically restrictive approach to Second Amendment claims.