The Ninth Circuit just heard oral arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, the major challenge to California’s statewide suppressor ban—and things did not go well for the state. What unfolded in the courtroom on November 18th was a revealing moment that highlighted just how thin California’s legal footing is when defending its prohibition on suppressors.

During the hearing, the attorney representing the state appeared unprepared, uncertain, and unable to articulate a consistent constitutional defense. His core claim was that suppressors are not “weapons” and therefore fall outside the Second Amendment’s plain text, meaning they can be banned outright without historical analogs.

But the real bombshell came when the state’s attorney openly admitted:

• Suppressors are rarely used in crime
• Magazines are “widely owned and rarely used in crime”
• California still banned them anyway

This admission unintentionally reinforced the argument that the state has adopted a pattern of banning commonly owned firearm accessories simply because it prefers to—not because history or facts support the restrictions.

At one point, the state began leaning into a prohibited “interest balancing” approach, essentially saying:

Even if suppressors aren’t used criminally, the state’s desire for safety outweighs any Second Amendment concerns.

This directly contradicts Bruen, which bars courts from weighing government interests against constitutional rights.

In contrast, the attorney for Mr. Sanchez delivered a clear, fact-driven argument grounded in:

• Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test
• The Ninth Circuit’s own precedent in BNL Productions
• The “integrated whole” concept from Duncan, noting that suppressors are part of the operation of a suppressed firearm

His position was simple and strong:

Banning suppressors meaningfully restricts lawful firearm use, and no historical tradition supports California’s ban.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the strongest three-judge panel gun-rights supporters could have hoped for in the Ninth Circuit. Based on historical patterns, the likely outcome is a 2–1 ruling against Sanchez, though a surprise win isn’t impossible.

Regardless of the panel’s decision, this case is almost guaranteed to be appealed—and it could become a strong candidate for Supreme Court review. With clear conflicts between California’s arguments and the Bruen standard, this case raises foundational questions about states banning an entire class of firearm accessories widely owned nationwide.