Anyone following this 2a case? Some dude (peterson) failed to pay his taxes, and during his arrest, he was found to be in possession of a solvent trap suppressor. He was convicted for having an unregistered NFA item, and appealed to the 5th circuit court of appeals. He lost his case with the 3 judge panel, and appealed for an en banc hearing.

The interesting part is that the US attorney down there (who's boss is Pam Bondi) filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, and stated that suppressors are not arms, and therefore are NOT protected by the 2nd amendment.

Now, knowing that Trump once said after a mass shooting in 2019 that he doesn't like silencers, and with Pam Bondi's spotty-at-best record on the 2nd amendment, I'm not sure what to think of this.


[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/live/Qf9r_BpzoeQ?si=sPSPwz8m2gyElcNp[/video]

Another video for anyone interested.

It is concerning. I personally heard Trump say he wasn't wild about suppressors, but regardless of his opinion, I don't think that will be his hill to die on.

I kind of tend it agree and disagree with this. Suppressors aren't arms and aren't constitutionally protected. I also want to see them legalized and deregulated.

yip, yip, yip!

This will be interesting.

That's the way I see it too. Accessories not needed for the function of the firearm would not likely be 2A protected. Sure hope I'm wrong on this.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out they already knew he had a makeshift suppressor and needed an excuse to arrest him so they could search for it.

I agree with Donner. Suppressors aren't arms but should be deregulated. I would be fine with a prosecutor who sees it that way too, as long as they also stand firm on the 2A constitutional meaning.

ol' dad

I agree that they're not firearms, but the DOJ wants to talk out of both sides of their mouth here. They want to say that suppressors aren't firearms and thus aren't protected by the 2a, but also you need to fill out a 4473 for one, the ATF can regulate it, and the NFA itself calls them arms.

The danger I see in deciding that they don't have 2nd amendment protection is that the same standard can then be applied to any other firearm accessory. If suppressors aren't protected by the 2nd, then neither are pistol grips, collapsable stocks, 30 round mags, thermal scopes, etc etc etcv any firearm accessory you can think of, and they can all thus be banned and/or regulated.

To relate it to a different constitutional right.....think about it in terms of the 1st amendment. Printers, bullhorns, and cameras aren't speech, but can be used to produce speech. Declaring suppressors to not be protected by the 2a is akin to the govt saying your printer that you use to make flyers, or your camera that you use to make rumble videos, or your bullhorn that you use in a protest march, etc etc etc isn't protected by the 1st amendment and can therefore be banned.

This depends upon the argument that some attorney wants to make and a judge (another attorney) wants to interpret. Clips are not firearms either, nor are stocks, how far do you think is reasonable to carry that argument? All components of a firearm, is ammo protected under the 2nd, they are not firearms. .....Addendum- I see Goose made the same argument above here and he's correct. His comment about using a bullhorn is a good one, makes your voice louder, should they be banned?

A question I have is can you yourself produce a silencer such as a gun, if produced by you for you and not resale can that be done?

You can't blame a reasonable person for making the distinction between something required to make the firearm function as it is designed and an accessory to the firearm.

I don't want any of it regulated and was not a fan of paying a tax stamp to buy my suppressors. But I will not throw a reasonable minded person under the bus for disagreeing with me on what is an accessory and what is not.

Ol dad

Unfortunately the appeal might not go very far. To my knowledge there is no historic analog that would support suppressors, or other case law supporting the defendants claim of 2A protection. Just speaking from a technical, legal standpoint, not that I don't think they should be legal.

Careful or this one will awaken Colonel Karen of the bump stock brigade.

All these items are still items of legal commerce. Suppressors and 30 round magazines pose zero risk to anyone. It is the firearm that causes risk in the hands of an idiot.

Sounds like the fifth circuit may be getting a phone call from someone. Don't know how that will turn out, but let's hope some common sense comes out of it.

Take it away, Colonel!!