California to Legalize Suppressors? Don’t Hold Your Breath . . .

SilencerCo's silenced muzzle loader (courtesy money.cnn.com)

‪Later today, the California Senate Public Safety Committee will hear S.B. 710. The bill would repeal Section 33410 of the Penal Code, making California the 43rd state to legalize the ownership of suppressors at the state level . . .

The legislation, introduced by Senator Anderson (no relation), would also amend the Fish and Game Code to legalize the use of suppressors for hunting. ‬The odds of S.B. 710 making it out of committee are lower than a snake’s belly.

The California legislature doesn’t exactly have a good record of allowing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  More specifically, the Committee is made up of five Democrats and two Republicans, chaired by Democratic Senator Nancy Skinner.

Senator Nancy Skinner (courtesy sd09.senate.ca.gov)

Here’s Senator Skinner’s post-Mandalay Bay bump fire stock statement:

I am truly heartbroken over the loss of so many lives, the horrific injuries and the suffering families and friends are now going through.

How can we justify laws that make it ok for someone to own an automatic weapon? Such a mass shooting is only possible when a shooter has a weapon that can shoot up to 100 bullets per minute.

What possible arguments can be made in support of laws that make owning assault rifles and automatic and semi-automatic weapons legal? To stop these senseless tragedies we must stand up to the gun lobby and eliminate these laws.

California: where gun rights go to die.

comments

  1. avatar Ogre says:

    You nailed it – California (along with a few other states) is where gun rights go to die. Nice try by Senator Anderson, but he probably knew that he was pissing into the wind.

    1. avatar JDH says:

      In California it’s more like pissing into a hurricane.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Wow, not even a “FLAME REDACTED”.

    2. avatar Madcapp says:

      California is such a wonderful place to live, they’re now spending $200 Million dollars for a suicide net on the Golden Gate Bridge (pictured above) for all the people suffering from melancholy and despair.

      1. avatar Gary says:

        Move to AZ and hope the Californuts So no move there. Plus, you’ll get a huge tax break.

  2. avatar Kyle says:

    lollolllollolo

    California legalize….anything currently illegal in anyway related to a firearm???

    This state would outlaw flintlocks if they could.

    NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN……..ever.

    1. avatar CS says:

      Legalize Pot smoke but not gun smoke. What is wrong with them?

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        California is head to toe completely messed up.

        When the last of the business’ go and we look like detroit, things will change, but not until we are fully and completely irredeemably bankrupt. That isn’t going to happen fast. the state government has to tax the big tech sector completely outta the state.

        ….and they’re really working on that too.

    2. New Jersey is the real state where gun laws go to die!
      New Jersey does ban flintlocks (without a gun license, basically treating them the same way as a Glock). A retired history teacher was arrested in NJ for having an antique 17th-century Queen Anne’s Flintlock pistol in his car. Not brandishing it, just traveling with it without a gun license (FPID card) and the impossible-to-obtain in NJ concealed carry permit (which NJ doesn’t grant to any civilians).
      The NJ State Police confiscated it and said they were actually going to do BALLISTICS TESTS on the antique 17th-century Queen Anne’s Flintlock pistol, to which he replied, “Do they have a lot of drive-by flintlock shootings in New Jersey?” Maybe the NJ State Police wanted to do ballistics tests to see if this flintlock had been used against British redcoats in the Revolutionary War?

  3. avatar Mark Disilvestro says:

    I think they’d legalize cocaine first!

    Happy Motoring, Mark

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      You laugh… we called that prop 47 (2014).

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    That woman photographed next to a sign proclaiming FREEDOM is the height of hypocrisy!

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      And it’s a dude.

  5. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I can’t justify using a suppressor when foam ear plugs are so cheap and doesn’t interfere with the length or weight of the rifle. To each his own, it’s your money…..

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      There is something satisfying about turning a huge explosive release of hot gases at pressure into a pfffft. I think that goes beyond the actual volume level, I usually have ear plugs on anyway because the other shooters don’t have supressors. And I am indoors. A lot of the fun of silencers is just because you…CAN! (Rim shot!)

    2. avatar Defens says:

      I can easily justify it – sound suppression is less for me than for those around me. I live in a rural area on five acres. I have a small personal shooting range, a few dozen yards long. It’s safely configured, but my nearest neighbors are certainly within earshot.

      If I want to practice for a while without bothering my neighbors, I’d much rather screw a suppressor on my barrel, so I have virtually no noise impact on the neighbors than to carry a bucket of ear plugs around to pass out.

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    If you really think about it. CA is trying to “fix the problem with firearms”, and we (some of us [FU if you need an invite]) are ready to “fix the problem, with firearms”. So, maybe someday we can “come together” on this, and one way or another “fix the problem”.

    If we ban communism, then we could “fix the problem, with firearms”, this SCOTUS / Fed lack of support of the Constitution thing is turning out to be a nothing burger and they are part of the problem.

  7. avatar slimjim9 says:

    Wait, two Republicans got elected in California? Credibility of this report is immediately suspect. 😉

    1. avatar Robert mw says:

      The democrats gerrymander the election lines to keep a few around. If they didn’t keep a few around, it would become a little too obvious that regular citizens here have almost no control over what actually happens in our government.

  8. avatar DMJ-747 says:

    Already killed in committee….

  9. avatar S.Crock says:

    It’s hard for me to get excited about anything pro gun in ca. I can’t get a carry permit in my county, we have ARs with fins for a grip, and an ever decreasing approved handgun roster. So the thought of legal supressors just makes me depressed thinking of how few guns are on the roster that could even be suppressed. Oh and I forgot about ammogeddon.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Every year the CA situation gets worse. How bad can it get before it snaps out there?

  11. avatar daniel says:

    They will legalize supressors but then make all firearms illegal. They will spend hundreds of millions to defend their losing action which will have gotten a boost from the 9th Circus Court. They will only stop when there is only enough money left to continue all the benefits they give illegals.

  12. avatar Toots & the Maytals says:

    But the American Suppressor Association is supporting it. It’s a done deal. Just like HPA!

  13. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I’ve said it be for and I’ll say it again.
    In California you walk around naked on days the government gives you permission. You can walk around with a well fitted strap on dildo for public attire. You can perform sex acts in public at the many sex festivals with hundreds of thousands of people pleasuring each other in public.
    You can shoot up crystal meth in public to improve your sexual experience. Having been born and raised in Sacramento, I glad this black conservative gun owner left and moved to Kentucky. At least here I can and do open carry all the time, and when I wear my NRA shirt at the same time, I have white people thanking me for supporting the second amendment.
    No Mulford Act in Kentucky!!!!

    The human right to private gun ownership for self defense has been replaced by the human right to put a foreign object into your body, in a public setting in California. The right to smoke pot is more important than having gun rights. Historically the pot head legalization leadership in California has always been anti second amendment.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email