Has the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals taken notice? Congress is working to include Second Amendment protections in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. One of them is the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404), which addresses the excessive, and some would argue unconstitutional, taxation and regulation of suppressors.
Little bird, little bird.
Back in February of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued their opinion in U.S. v. Peterson upholding the conviction of a man sentenced for possession of an unregistered suppressor. In their ruling, a three-judge panel held that “suppressors do not trigger Second Amendment protection”, arguing that a “suppressor, by itself, is not a weapon.” …
Today the appeals court issued a directive to both plaintiffs and defendants letting them know that the panel’s earlier opinion has officially been withdrawn.
The firearms policy coalition adds that,
“Today’s withdrawal is a promising development and we look forward to pressing this case forward,” said FPC Action Foundation President and co-counsel for Mr. Peterson, Cody J. Wisniewski. “This case, however, is far from over. The Fifth Circuit should now properly apply Supreme Court precedent and issue an opinion that recognizes the Constitution’s protection of suppressors as well as the unconstitutionality of the government’s tax and registration scheme in the NFA.”
The case will not be reviewed by the full Fifth Circuit as Congress moves to add a law, making it moot.
HB404 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove silencers from the definition of firearms, and for other purposes, and along with the SHORT Act, has been included in the Big Beautiful Bill. In short, it “removes the federal NFA taxes on:”
- Suppressors (aka Silencers)
- Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)
- Short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)
- Any Other Weapons (AOWs)
Add this to the Trump DOJs position…
In the view of the United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors. As a result, restrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional. The government’s earlier argument to the contrary was incorrect. But the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory that is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse. For this reason, the panel correctly affirmed Peterson’s conviction. Accordingly, although rehearing en banc is unwarranted, the Court should grant panel rehearing to correct the panel opinion’s analysis.
And things are looking up.
