CRPA is supporting a lawsuit challenging California’s ban on suppressors, Sanchez v. Bonta. The lawsuit, started by a pro se litigant and is now in the Ninth Circuit 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 to several other cases that CRPA has been fighting in the courts for years.

Sanchez’s lawsuit started because he wanted to create and use a 3D-printed suppressor, so 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 appealed, and after a briefing was completed, on February 3, the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that it was inclined to appoint counsel to represent 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 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, CRPA’s lawyers at Michel & Associates will be joining Sanchez’s new legal team and will work to prepare a 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.