{"id":113436,"date":"2025-11-21T10:30:44","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T16:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113436"},"modified":"2025-11-21T10:30:44","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T16:30:44","slug":"113436","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113436","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/2025\/11\/california-suppressor-ban-faces-constitutional-challenge-in-pivotal-sanchez-v-bonta-hearing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Suppressor Ban Faces Constitutional Challenge in Pivotal Sanchez v. Bonta Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Pasadena Courtroom 3 9:00 AM Tuesday 11\/18\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/rHMCd1oFARw\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"95\" data-end=\"417\">Gun rights advocates are reacting to a pivotal hearing that took place yesterday, as the Ninth Circuit weighed whether suppressors qualify as protected \u201carms\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"419\" data-end=\"691\" data-is-last-node=\"\" data-is-only-node=\"\">The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on November 18, 2025, in the case of\u00a0<em data-start=\"512\" data-end=\"530\">Sanchez v. Bonta<\/em>, which challenges California\u2019s sweeping ban on firearm suppressors. These devices reduce, but do not eliminate, the sound produced when a firearm is discharged.<\/p>\n<div class=\"code-block code-block-17\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1671218810065-0\">The case in question pits a pro se plaintiff backed by major gun rights organizations against California\u2019s attorney general in a battle over whether suppressors qualify as constitutionally protected \u201carms.\u201d<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><strong>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 \u00a7 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\u2019s ban violates the Second Amendment.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The district court dismissed his complaint, ruling that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are \u201conly\u201d accessories, not \u201carms.\u201d Sanchez appealed the decision on September 6, 2024. Recognizing the case\u2019s significance, the California Rifle and Pistol Association\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/2025\/02\/california-rifle-pistol-association-joins-the-fight-to-legalize-suppressors\/\" data-uri=\"dde1b6759d5f44f9e7fe07bc348016ea\">enlisted<\/a>\u00a0Michel &amp; Associates and Cooper &amp; Kirk to assist Sanchez, and the Ninth Circuit agreed to accept both firms as counsel.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Dean Weingarten previously\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/2025\/06\/challenge-to-california-suppressor-ban-moves-forward\/\" data-uri=\"f3b22407b90d5ac08d94826449aeeb36\">highlighted<\/a>\u00a0the Ninth Circuit\u2019s hostility toward gun rights: \u201cThe Ninth Circuit has historically been one of the circuits most openly defying Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>At stake is whether California\u2019s suppressor ban can survive scrutiny under Supreme Court precedents including\u00a0<i>District of Columbia v. Heller<\/i>,\u00a0<i>New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/i>, and\u00a0<i>United States v. Rahimi<\/i>. Sanchez argues suppressors meet the \u201ccommon use\u201d standard established in these cases, as they are legal in 42 states and millions are possessed by law-abiding Americans.<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In their<a href=\"https:\/\/michellawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/2025-03-28-Appellants-Replacement-Opening-Brief.pdf\" data-uri=\"c60edf5c429ff2334f8995e779cf70af\">\u00a0replacement opening brief<\/a>, Sanchez\u2019s attorneys argue \u201cFirearm suppressors\u2014which reduce but do not eliminate the noise emitted from a firearm\u2014support 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The brief emphasizes suppressors\u2019 self-defense utility, explaining \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>California Attorney General Rob Bonta counters that \u201cSilencers are neither bearable \u2018Arms\u2019 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.\u201d His brief attempts to redefine the Second Amendment framework, replacing the \u201cin common use for lawful purposes\u201d standard with a narrower \u201ccommonly used for ordinary self-defense\u201d test.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Trump administration\u2019s Department of Justice recently signaled support for Second Amendment protection of suppressors, filing a brief in the Fifth Circuit case<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/docket\/68186278\/129\/2\/united-states-v-peterson\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-uri=\"a1336bec4a6fd5204080b8073f9fba32\">\u00a0<i>United States v. Peterson<\/i><\/a>\u00a0declaring silencers are arms protected by the Second Amendment. This creates potential for a circuit split if the Ninth Circuit rules against Sanchez.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Supporting data reinforces Sanchez\u2019s position. A 2017 ATF White Paper concluded \u201cSuppressors 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Sanchez\u2019s brief notes the Supreme Court\u2019s guidance that \u201cThe 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,\u201d directly contradicting the district court\u2019s categorical exclusion of accessories.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Weingarten framed the philosophical stakes clearly, writing \u201cThe two briefs represent two different visions of reality. The State of California\u2019s 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.\u201d\u00a0He contrasted this with Sanchez\u2019s position representing \u201cthe 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Gun rights advocates should be deeply concerned about California\u2019s attempt to create a new \u201ccommonly used for ordinary self-defense\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<p>During oral arguments before a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jay Bybee, Kenneth Lee, and John De Alba, Judge Kenneth Lee\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/business-and-practice\/judge-uses-silencer-ban-case-to-condemn-ninth-circuit-gun-ruling\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-uri=\"7721fccaa7f39790782f1550a5eef995\">emerged as<\/a>\u00a0particularly critical of California\u2019s position.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judge Lee suggested that under California\u2019s reasoning, \u201ca 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\u2019s not instances of it.\u201d This comment indicated skepticism toward the state\u2019s approach and concern that California\u2019s logic could be extended to ban a wide range of firearm accessories.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The panel composition is notable: Judge Bybee previously authored the 7-4 en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/charlesnichols.substack.com\/p\/oral-argument-in-9th-circuit-silencersuppressor\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-uri=\"9f8e4f968cd85d54173c0f2a5adcb77f\">holding there<\/a>\u00a0is 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.<\/p>\n<p>Because the case was\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/lawsuit-challenges-californias-ban-on-suppressors\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-uri=\"9e09d8ddae28f930d32542e2b350e980\">dismissed at<\/a>\u00a0the 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>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\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/suppressor.org\/litigation\/california\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-uri=\"ebf3e964cddf7fde8fcbc20f9f0829c3\">challenges to<\/a>\u00a0suppressor bans in the seven other states that prohibit them\u2013Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Following the November 18, 2025 oral arguments in Pasadena, the court will\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/charlesnichols.substack.com\/p\/oral-argument-in-9th-circuit-silencersuppressor\" data-uri=\"9f8e4f968cd85d54173c0f2a5adcb77f\">issue a<\/a>\u00a0decision determining whether the district court erred in dismissing Sanchez\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>Given Judge Lee\u2019s pointed questioning during oral argument and the recent shift in the federal government\u2019s 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\u2019s historically restrictive approach to Second Amendment claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u201carms\u201d under the Second Amendment. The outcome could either bring California in line with 42 other states or set a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113436\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=113436"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113436\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":113437,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113436\/revisions\/113437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=113436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=113436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=113436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}