(José Niño, Headline USA) Trump’s Justice Department apparently does not believe suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment.
In the case of United States v. Peterson, Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson filed a brief on March 17, 2025, arguing that firearm suppressors are not protected under the Second Amendment. He argued that suppressors do not constitute “arms” as defined by the Second Amendment.
Firearms suppressors, also known as silencers or sound moderators, are muzzle devices designed to reduce the noise and flash generated when a gun is fired.
Simpson’s contention aligns with the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision on Feb. 6, 2025, which held that suppressors are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. Simpson claimed that the National Firearms Act’s regulation of suppressors is consistent with historical firearm regulations and does not infringe on constitutional rights.
Gun Owners Foundation, the legal arm of Gun Owners of America published a post on X criticizing Simpson’s brief, declaring “Suppressors are absolutely ‘arms’ under the 2A and there is no legal reason to ban any accessory. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent.”
@GunOwners, @GunOwnersCA and other 2A orgs filed an amicus in support of Peterson in US v. George Peterson.
Suppressors are absolutely “arms” under the 2A and there is no legal reason to ban any accessory. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent
GOF, @GunOwners, @GunOwnersCA and other 2A orgs filed an amicus in support of Peterson in US v. George Peterson.
Suppressors are absolutely "arms" under the 2A and there is no legal reason to ban any accessory. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent. pic.twitter.com/jV2rq8BU0U
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 17, 2025
The case in question deals with George Peterson, a firearm business owner who was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA) after law enforcement carried out a raid on his home. Peterson challenged the constitutionality of the NFA’s suppressor registration mandate.
The Fifth Circuit decided that suppressors do not constitute “arms” as outlined by the Second Amendment. Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote that a suppressor “by itself, is not a weapon” and without being attached to a firearm, “it would not be of much use for self-defense.”
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
