Videos tagged with Suppressor Ban

This video provides an update on a critical legal challenge to suppressor bans, specifically focusing on a case in front of the Seventh Circuit concerning Illinois's prohibition on suppressor purchase and possession. The speaker, identified as an experienced authority, details the plaintiffs' arguments that such bans violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller and Bruen, and discusses the state's repeated delays in responding to the appeal, suggesting a tactic to prevent the case from reaching the Supreme Court.

This video discusses a legal case involving Gary Sanchez and the CRPA challenging California's restrictions on suppressors. Sanchez's attempt to 3D print his own suppressors was hindered by a denied federal permit due to the state ban. After his initial lawsuit was dismissed in the district court, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which has expressed interest in hearing the case by assigning counsel.

This video provides a comprehensive recap of CRPA's litigation efforts throughout 2025, focusing on key legal challenges to California's firearms regulations. Chuck Michelle, President of CRPA, details ongoing lawsuits concerning CCW fees, suppressor bans, FFL surveillance, ammunition regulations, and magazine capacity limits. The discussion highlights the strategic legal battles being fought in federal courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of these cases for Second Amendment rights in California and beyond.

This video breaks down the key court arguments in Sanchez v. Bont, a legal challenge to California's ban on firearm suppressors. It discusses how the case reached the Ninth Circuit, the significance of the court assigning counsel, and the legal strategies employed, particularly focusing on the argument that suppressors are essential for lawful purposes like training and self-defense. The discussion highlights the state's potential strategy to argue that suppressors are not 'arms' to avoid stricter Second Amendment scrutiny.

This video analyzes a recent district court ruling in Morse v. Raul and Anderson v. Raul, which addressed state bans on suppressor ownership. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that suppressors are not protected arms under the Second Amendment because there's no historical tradition or precedent showing they were considered arms at the founding. This ruling is being appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and its interpretation of the Bruin standard, requiring historical analogs for modern firearm accessories, is a key point of contention.

A recent court ruling in Morse v. Raul has determined that Illinois's ban on firearm suppressors does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. The court's reasoning centers on the historical definition of 'arms,' concluding that suppressors, not existing during the 18th century, do not fall under constitutional protection. This decision dismisses the plaintiffs' claim that the ban is unconstitutional, highlighting the ongoing legal debate surrounding firearm accessories.

This video discusses the federal lawsuit Padua v. Platkin, filed against New Jersey's ban on firearm suppressors. The lawsuit argues that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. It highlights the historical legality of suppressors and their role in hearing protection and firearm safety, challenging the state's prohibition.

Gun For Hire Radio Episode 739 discusses a significant legal challenge to suppressor bans in New Jersey. Six leading gun rights organizations have filed a joint lawsuit in the federal district court to overturn these restrictive laws. The episode emphasizes the urgency of this legal action and encourages listeners to support the cause through engagement and voting.

This video discusses the legal landscape surrounding firearm suppressors, particularly in California. It examines federal legislative efforts like the Hearing Protection Act and ongoing litigation challenging suppressor bans. The discussion highlights how the removal of the tax component from the National Firearms Act (NFA) by recent legislation may impact the constitutionality of its registration requirements, as argued in lawsuits like Gun Owners of America's challenge and Sanchez v. Bont in California.

This video from Washington Gun Law TV addresses the implications of HR1, which zeroes out the federal tax stamp for suppressors, for Washington State residents. It clarifies that the federal tax reduction is not yet effective in Washington and advises viewers to be aware of potential state-level suppressor bans in the upcoming legislative session. The speaker suggests that now might be a strategic time to purchase suppressors before potential state bans and increased demand impact availability and pricing.

This video details legal challenges to Illinois's ban on firearm suppressors, specifically the cases Morse v. Raul and Anderson v. Raul. It explains how these cases leverage the Supreme Court's Bruen decision to argue that state bans on suppressors, considered 'arms' under the Second Amendment, are unconstitutional. The discussion highlights Illinois's legal arguments and the potential impact of these lawsuits on gun rights nationwide.

This video discusses the legal challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on suppressors, specifically the US v. Peterson case. It highlights a significant shift in the Trump DOJ's position, now arguing that suppressors are protected arms under the Second Amendment. The content focuses on the ongoing legal battles and the potential for en banc review by the Fifth Circuit to overturn previous rulings.