Has anyone every sued the California government for hearing loss

[philcox]

I am wondering if there has ever been a class action agains the govt of California for hearing damamge caused by prohibiting the use of suppressors by the civilian population? I know it is a long shot, but seems to me that vector should produce something. Since it is essentially impossible to make a rifle hearing safe, even with double earpro, without a suppressor. I would think there is something there.

Just thinking outloud.

 

[mulveymo]

You wouldn't win because there are plenty of suitable alternatives to shooting without ear protection and blaming the government.

 

[Beendare]

You wouldn't win because there are plenty of suitable alternatives to shooting without ear protection and blaming the government.

Agreed, Although I like the way you think @philcox, eye and ear protection is required at all of the ranges I've seen.

It's the whole slip on someone's sidewalk thing...which sometimes works but unless you get the lone conservative judge, all of the other liberal judges will shut it down- as they should.

 

[philcox]

You wouldn't win because there are plenty of suitable alternatives to shooting without ear protection and blaming the government.

I am talking WITH earpro (even double). To my understanding there is no possible way to get a bolt action rifle to be hearing safe, even with Double earpro. So seems to me that I have a choice to not shoot or injure my hearing.

What are these "alternatives" that you are referring to?

 

[S-3 ranch]

Buy a compressed air gun unless commiefornia has made them illegal to?
I swear that state is the most weird state in America
Homeless, sanctuary cities, raw sewage from drug addicted folks living on the streets, terrible government policies

 

[philcox]

Everyone should understand that your foam & Walkers are NOT saving your ears, just not damaging them as bad, and that is with 223 and 65, you start talking Magnums, and sorry every shot is damaging your hearing, at least to my understanding.

If so I am wrong, please enlighten me as to how to make shooting "hearing safe" without a suppressor?

 

[DB29]

A class action wouldn’t work, the government isn’t making you shoot a gun and damage your hearing.

Also, because a suppressor isn’t a gun it wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment and subject to the text and traditions test.

The only other option I could see would be a suit for violation of substantive due process but because it isn’t infringing on a fundamental right or essential activity the standard of review would be the lowest of rational basis. Under rational basis the plaintiff has the burden of proving the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Almost all laws will pass this standard.

 

[S-3 ranch]

Everyone should understand that your foam & Walkers are NOT saving your ears, just not damaging them as bad, and that is with 223 and 65, you start talking Magnums, and sorry every shot is damaging your hearing, at least to my understanding.

If so, please enlighten me.

Sound higher than 100db travel though the facial and skull bones , foam and ear phones even when used together still don’t provide protection
Except it’s better than nothing

 

[Scotto]

They might argue that you always have a choice to not partake in the shooting of loud guns, knowing that you might hurt your hearing.

 

[kkp005]

Sound higher than 100db travel though the facial and skull bones , foam and ear phones even when used together still don’t provide protection
Except it’s better than nothing

I believe that . I sighted in a buddy’s 20” 7prc that had a brake on it…. My God that thing rattled my teeth from the muzzle blast..
I’ve gotten to where I will not shoot anything other than a shotgun without a suppressor

 

[Q_Sertorius]

They might argue that you always have a choice to not partake in the shooting of loud guns, knowing that you might hurt your hearing.

Heller and its progeny should cast doubt on this.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[philcox]

A class action wouldn’t work, the government isn’t making you shoot a gun and damage your hearing.

This one is interesting to me. I agree they are not, but I have a fundamental right to do it, and if it is impossible to do it safely because of a law, seems there is something to that. But I am not a lawyer, so no real idea.

Also, because a suppressor isn’t a gun it wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment and subject to the text and traditions test.

Same argument was made for magazines. Again, not a lawyer, but I think necessary accessories are covered. Seems to me that if a magazine is covered, then the only thing that can make it hearing safe might fall into that.

The only other option I could see would be a suit for violation of substantive due process but because it isn’t infringing on a fundamental right or essential activity the standard of review would be the lowest of rational basis. Under rational basis the plaintiff has the burden of proving the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Almost all laws will pass this standard.

This is language from someone in the know. That is not me. I am not sure there is a legitimate government interest for me not to be able to not damage my hearing. I think it is very logical case that just the opposite. The problem is that most folks think silencers are "pfft" devices, too much TV.

Oh well, will never happen in this state unless by some miracle the SCOTUS cracks open the NFA and everything falls out ... not holding my breath.

 

[DB29]

This one is interesting to me. I agree they are not, but I have a fundamental right to do it, and if it is impossible to do it safely because of a law, seems there is something to that. But I am not a lawyer, so no real idea.

Same argument was made for magazines. Again, not a lawyer, but I think necessary accessories are covered. Seems to me that if a magazine is covered, then the only thing that can make it hearing safe might fall into that.

This is language from someone in the know. That is not me. I am not sure there is a legitimate government interest for me not to be able to not damage my hearing. I think it is very logical case that just the opposite. The problem is that most folks think silencers are "pfft" devices, too much TV.

Oh well, will never happen in this state unless by some miracle the SCOTUS cracks open the NFA and everything falls out ... not holding my breath.

Class actions arise out of tort claims like negligence or product liability, not constitutional violations. I don’t see a way you could claim the government is negligently breaching a duty owed by regulating suppressors.

It can be argued that magazines are necessary to operate a firearm and therefore infringe on the 2nd amendment. The same can’t be said for suppressors. Also, the government can regulate guns, the standard of review is just higher.

You are applying that standard of review incorrectly. To show the law infringes on substantive due process rights you have to show the governments regulation of suppressors is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The government will argue that it has a legitimate government interest in protecting its citizens from being shot by suppressed guns. This connection only has to be rational as suppressors are not a fundamental or constitutional right.

I like your idea and not trying to be a Debbie Downer.

 

[TaperPin]

The idea seems idiotic, like suing a band for concert music that’s too loud, but that’s just me. If you were to find a big pocket of money and were able to prove in some landmark decision that firearms cannot be made safe without a can, you would be the poster child for the anti gun nuts. All across the nation I can see new regulations banning rifles because they aren’t safe. Lawsuits directly against gun companies. I show up the rifle range and I’m not welcome because my guns can’t be made safe. Thanks a lot.

 

[DB29]

The idea seems idiotic, like suing a band for concert music that’s too loud, but that’s just me. If you were to find a big pocket of money and were able to prove in some landmark decision that firearms cannot be made safe without a can, you would be the poster child for the anti gun nuts. All across the nation I can see new regulations banning rifles because they aren’t safe. Lawsuits directly against gun companies. I show up the rifle range and I’m not welcome because my guns can’t be made safe. Thanks a lot.

Calling the idea idiotic seems harsh and only results in making it less likely someone will share an idea in the future. I assume we are all on the same page of wanting to advance gun and similar rights. Perhaps the next “idiotic” idea he has will be viable but he or others will remain silent because of internal criticism previously received while sharing thoughts with allies.

The rest of your post makes large assumptions and leaps to arrive at an unreasonable place. Guns aren’t hearing safe and they currently aren't banned because of the safeguards and standards of review I described in posts above. A court ruling that they aren’t hearing safe would not change those safeguards and standards of review.

 

[Axlrod]

A class action wouldn’t work, the government isn’t making you shoot a gun and damage your hearing.

Also, because a suppressor isn’t a gun it wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment and subject to the text and traditions test.

The only other option I could see would be a suit for violation of substantive due process but because it isn’t infringing on a fundamental right or essential activity the standard of review would be the lowest of rational basis. Under rational basis the plaintiff has the burden of proving the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Almost all laws will pass this standard.

Under the National Firearms Act, the BATF does classify suppressors as firearms. You have to fill out a form 4473 at purchase.

 

[philcox]

All, appreciate the thoughts, especially @DB29.

The "... its citizens from being shot by suppressed guns..." is the part that SEEMS to me would be easy to prove. Anyone who has been around a silencer knows it is loud, and not the "pfft" sound that movies and hollywood make them out to be. It is common sense to me. Id' love to see a govt official demostrate how a suppressor, in any material way, protects anyone from being shot. Also, not arguing this. I get your point, it just beffudles me that anyone has that view point. But if your goal is unarming the masses, then it makes total sense. I am also aware that 99% of the people making these laws don't know different between a bolt rifle and an automatic rifle (e.g., they are naive at best, and corrupt most likely).

Ok everyone, ignore this thread going forward and go have fun this weekend!

 

[GSPHUNTER]

I personal don't know you, but I do know the state has very deep pockets. Hard to beat city hall, so they say.

 

[philcox]

I personal don't know you, but I do know the state has very deep pockets. Hard to beat city hall, so they say.

My nickname is "Shallow Pockets" (I've spent all my money on RSS stuff

 

[DB29]

Under the National Firearms Act, the BATF does classify suppressors as firearms. You have to fill out a form 4473 at purchase.

The NFA regulates firearms and firearm accessories. Although the BATF doesn’t typically have authority to regulate firearm accessories they get some exceptions under the NFA and can regulate certain accessories like suppressors and pistol braces.