Gun owner fights California silencer ban at Ninth Circuit

California man Gary Sanchez says firearm suppressors protect the hearing of gun owners and that the state's ban is unconstitutional.

by Quinn Welsch, Court House News, November 18, 2025

PASADENA, Calif. (CN) — An attorney representing a California man who is challenging the state’s ban on firearm silencers argued to a panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the devices are protected under the Second Amendment.

Suppressors, also known as silencers, are devices attached to the barrel of a firearm to reduce the volume of a gunshot. Federal law allows ownership of silencers, but several states, including California, maintain an outright ban on the devices.

Attorney Pete Patterson, representing Bonsall, California, resident Gary Sanchez, argued that the suppressors improve firearm safety and reduce hearing damage. Sanchez initially filed the lawsuit in April 2024 in the U.S. District Court of Southern California. U.S. District Judge Robert Huie dismissed the case that summer, saying a silencer is not itself an arm or a means of self-defense.

“I don’t think it is implausible or in any way a stretch to say banning a suppressor meaningfully constrains the Second Amendment,” the Cooper & Kirk attorney told the panel of judges. “If someone has to choose between their hearing and using a firearm, that is a meaningful constraint on Second Amendment rights.”

Patterson argued silencers are protected under the Second Amendment and that the devices are a popular device owned and used by lawful firearm owners in 42 states across the country already.

“They haven’t proved particularly harmful,” he told the judges on Tuesday. “There are millions of them in the United States. Out of the thousands of federal gun prosecutions per year, 30 per year are for suppressors. The vast majority of those are victimless crimes, such as mere possessory offenses. There’s just no way they can say suppressors have proved to be particularly harmful.”

Additionally, Patterson argued that suppressors are often used for training purposes, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which found that training is an integral part of the Second Amendment.

“Training is a protected activity that itself facilitates self-defense,” he said.

However, judges on the panel were not wholly convinced that suppressors were necessary.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ana de Alba, a Joe Biden appointee, asked Patterson why firearm users couldn’t simply use earplugs or some other form of protection to protect their hearing.

Patterson argued suppressors are preferable because they allow the firearm user to more effectively communicate with other people without the deafening sound of gunshots, especially indoors.

“The core of the Second Amendment is self-defense, so if one is forced to defend oneself, one may not have the time to attach a suppressor if it’s not already there,” said Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee. “It doesn’t meaningfully constrain the core right of the Second Amendment to self-defense because it does not impair the shooting of the gun.”

The volume of firearms was also an important part of Tuesday’s argument. Despite their name, the devices do not actually silence the gunshot.

“The suppressed firearms are still the equivalent of a rock concert of ambulance sirens,” he said. “They are not quiet. They are still very loud.”

But they are quiet enough not to impair or damage hearing, he told the judges.

The state of California also argued over the volume of firearms, saying they can be used to hide or conceal criminal activity, such as in a mass shooting.

“There have been instances in shooting scenarios where witnesses and victims have mistook the sound for a nail gun, for instance,” said Deputy Attorney General Kevin Quade. “Those precious seconds in which potential victims were not aware of the circumstances that were happening that allowed them to flee the danger, take cover, or prepare to fight — those seconds are lost when a muffled firearm sound basically deprives potential victims of an awareness of what is going on.”

Additionally, Quade argued the panel should look to whether the suppressors were integral to the use of a firearm.

But the judges weren’t fully convinced of the state’s argument, either.

“Statistically, it’s not a really relevant point in that a lot of times these crimes are not using silencers,” de Alba said. “The people who are doing these mass shootings are not using silencers.”

Quade agreed with de Alba but said they still pose a potential danger in unique cases.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, suggested the state could ban any component of a firearm that is not a functional part of the shooting mechanism, such as a recoil pad, under the state’s interpretation of the Duncan v. Bonta case, which upheld a ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds.

“It’s pretty sweeping power for the state to ban things that are used for lawful purposes and probably pose no danger,” he said. “Under your reading of Duncan, it seems like California can ban anything that actually is helpful to gun owners or makes it more safe to use.”

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump in July, deregulated suppressors by eliminating registration requirements and a fee at the federal level. Suppressors are outright banned in eight states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

“It’s important we’re talking about a possession ban here," Patterson told the judges. “A possession ban means people can’t use this item for any purposes protected by the Second Amendment.”