In layman’s terms: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in a ruling that suppressors are not “arms” and are not protected by the Second Amendment.
On February 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling concluding that a suppressor is not an “arm,” and is not protected under the Second Amendment.
The decision in the case of United States v. Peterson was issued by a three-judge panel, including Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Circuit Judges, Higginbotham and Southwick. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Peterson’s motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting that the NFA’s regulation of suppressors does not violate the Second Amendment.
Indictment Under the National Firearms Act
In 2022, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business operated from Peterson’s home in Louisiana. During the raid, agents found an unregistered, homemade firearm suppressor in Peterson’s home, leading to his indictment under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for possessing an unregistered suppressor. Peterson argued that the NFA’s requirement for suppressor registration infringed on his Second Amendment rights.
Court’s Selective Conclusion
Writing for the Court, Elrod concluded, “A suppressor, by itself, is not a weapon. Without being attached to a firearm, it would not be of much use for self-defense,” adding, “Instead, we agree with the Tenth Circuit that a suppressor ‘is a firearm accessory . . . not a weapon.’ ” The court even went so far as to suggest that a suppressor wouldn’t make a good weapon for throwing or striking, although interestingly no one volunteered to be a test case.
Peterson’s defense pointed to United States v. Miller, which identified “arms” as including the “‘proper accoutrements’ that render the firearm useful and functional.”
The 5th Circuit court maneuvered its way to this exclusionary conclusion by stating, “the Supreme Court did not identify this principle in Heller ‘s extensive treatment of Miller…” and added, “Notwithstanding that a suppressor is hardly the sort of ‘accoutrement’ Miller contemplated. Rather, the 1785 Virginia statute quoted in Miller used that language to describe items like gunpowder, lead, and cartridges—items necessary to a firearm’s operation, not just compatible with it.”
The court’s decision also stepped neatly around the Bruen precedent, which asks whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct.” By concluding that the suppressors are not firearms, the court conveniently no longer has to compare the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” against the regulation at issue. If so, the court would find virtually no historical regulation of suppressors, rendering it a slam-dunk win in the favor of the defendant.
Today, suppressors are regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, and require a potential buyer to send the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms an application that includes fingerprints, passport photos and the $200 transfer tax.
The “Hearing Protection Act,” re-introduced in 2025 by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA), would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act and place them in the same category as rifles and shotguns.
As a result of the Fifth Circuit decision, Peterson’s 24-month prison sentence still stands.
Suppressors should be removed from the NFA at worst, if in fact the NFA itself is not repealed/