Has anyone every sued the California government for hearing loss

[ColPenguin]

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.

Suppressors are defined as firearms, in federal law.

 

[DB29]

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!

No worries, you posted this at the right time. I took the California Bar Exam this week… Take it all with a grain of salt as it’s coming from some idiot on the internet who probably didn’t pass the bar.

 

[IdahoElk]

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.

Are you saying that a suppressor makes shooting supersonic ammo safe to shoot without ear protection?

 

[DB29]

Suppressors are defined as firearms, in federal law.

I get that. Are you saying because of that definition they then can’t be infringed on in the same way guns can’t under the 2nd amendment? If yes, why are states allowed to ban suppressors but not guns?

I don’t think that definition changes anything I said above?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

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.

Shooting with suppressors can still cause hearing damage…

 

[Marble]

Earplugs and cuffs work well to protect hearing.

But it is a choice to shoot firearms so I doubt a lawsuit would go anywhere.

I've seen workers' comp cases for hearing loss, but that's a completely different subject.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[ColPenguin]

I get that. Are you saying because of that definition they then can’t be infringed on in the same way guns can’t under the 2nd amendment? If yes, why are states allowed to ban suppressors but not guns?

Well someone has to challenge those states in court. That is pretty expensive. So they get away with it.

 

[DB29]

Well someone has to challenge those states in court. That is pretty expensive. So they get away with it.

They just successfully challenged the ammo and conceal carry laws in CA. My guess is they don’t challenge suppressors because that federal definition that allows the ATF to regulate them doesn’t actually change them into firearms.

If not that then banning suppressors is seen as passing the text and traditions standard under the 2nd amendment. Which also seems possible.

 

[ColPenguin]

They just successfully challenged the ammo and conceal carry laws in CA. My guess is they don’t challenge suppressors because that federal definition that allows the ATF to regulate them doesn’t actually change them into firearms.

If not that then banning suppressors is seen as passing the text and traditions standard under the 2nd amendment. Which also seems possible.

That sounds like good news.

Its not that anyone hasn't challenged CA on suppressors. It's an expensive and arduous process that takes a long time to change. It's really not fair to law abiding gun owners and sportsmen in California.

I get that some people might have careers and family rooting them in California. I wouldn't want to stay there, if it were me.

A current case: https://suppressor.org/litigation/california/

The NFA actually states that firearm mufflers and suppressors are firearms in their definitions, signed into law by Congress and the president at that time. The law that sets up the taxation process the ATF enforces defines suppressors in that way. It's not my opinion or interpretation. It's spelled out explicitly.

In recent lawsuits, the ATF and others have tried to argue in court that suppressors are not forearms because they cannot cast a projectile on their own. Trying to argue around the constitutionality of taxing a right or keeping a firearm registry for tax enforcement purposes. It's too bad that bad arguments do not void their authority to enforce and nothing ever seems to change.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/doj-backpedals-on-suppressor-rights/

DOJ Lawyer Argues Suppressors are Not Protected Arms Then Reverses Course

Explore the legal implications surrounding suppressors and Second Amendment rights following the US v. Peterson decision.

www.ammoland.com

 

[Bluefish]

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?

Double ear pro provides about 50 db of protection, so even a braked 50 cal at around 180 is still at about 130 with double ear pro. Now single ear pro won’t get you under 140 for a lot of rifles.

 

[philcox]

Are you saying that a suppressor makes shooting supersonic ammo safe to shoot without ear protection?

Read the original post, I said that even with double ear protection, it is impossible to make a rifle hearing safe without a suppressor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philcox]

Double ear pro provides about 50 db of protection, so even a braked 50 cal at around 180 is still at about 130 with double ear pro. Now single ear pro won’t get you under 140 for a lot of rifles.

I’d be interested to see what gives you 50db reduction. Everything I’ve read and all the shirts I’ve seen best you’re gonna get is about 38db,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philcox]

I didn’t quite delve into it, because it wasn’t part of the original question. But it is my understanding that with the suppressor, you should be wearing ear protection as well.

With a suppressor and proper hearing protection, you can be hearing safe. Without a suppressor, it is impossible. That was my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick1]

The idea seems idiotic, like suing a band for concert music that’s too loud, but that’s just me.

As idiotic as suing a fast food restaurant because the coffee is too hot????

 

[DB29]

That sounds like good news.

Its not that anyone hasn't challenged CA on suppressors. It's an expensive and arduous process that takes a long time to change. It's really not fair to law abiding gun owners and sportsmen in California.

I get that some people might have careers and family rooting them in California. I wouldn't want to stay there, if it were me.

A current case: https://suppressor.org/litigation/california/

The NFA actually states that firearm mufflers and suppressors are firearms in their definitions, signed into law by Congress and the president at that time. The law that sets up the taxation process the ATF enforces defines suppressors in that way. It's not my opinion or interpretation. It's spelled out explicitly.

In recent lawsuits, the ATF and others have tried to argue in court that suppressors are not forearms because they cannot cast a projectile on their own. Trying to argue around the constitutionality of taxing a right or keeping a firearm registry for tax enforcement purposes. It's too bad that bad arguments do not void their authority to enforce and nothing ever seems to change.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/doj-backpedals-on-suppressor-rights/

DOJ Lawyer Argues Suppressors are Not Protected Arms Then Reverses Course

Explore the legal implications surrounding suppressors and Second Amendment rights following the US v. Peterson decision.

www.ammoland.com

If the definition of suppressors changes and it isn’t considered a firearm what new protection does that provide to residents of states like California? If something is a firearm and gets regulated by a state like CA when it is challenged and reviewed by the SC it gets a special standard of review that is harder to meet than non constitutional issues.

If tomorrow a suppressor isn’t a firearm what stops states like California from banning them the same way they ban isobutane canisters or many other things that aren’t constitutionally protected?

 

[ColPenguin]

If tomorrow a suppressor isn’t a firearm what stops states like California from banning them the same way they ban isobutane canisters or many other things that aren’t constitutionally protected?

I don't know. It seems the state government of California will do whatever it wants and get away with it it for some period of time. What makes you think it will change?