Interesting things are happening in the Fifth Circuit case involving silencers, USA v Peterson. A three-judge panel ruled that silencers were not “arms” as defined by the text of the Second Amendment.
Peterson and his attorneys have asked the case be reheard in an en banc review. The Fifth Circuit has been reasonably diligent in its Second Amendment cases, so an en banc (review by the whole court) has a good chance of reversing the three-judge panel. The Peterson case appears to be seriously considered by the Fifth Circuit. The court has sent a request to the parties involved to send a response on to the Appellant’s Petition. The request for response was sent on March 7, 2025.
The Trump Administration issued an executive order to the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi to present a plan to review all legal actions and regulations affecting rights protected by the Second Amendment. The plan is due by March 10th. The Fifth Circuit request is a golden opportunity for the DOJ to present a clear and effective response in the USA v. Peterson case.
In the case, the US Attorney made the claim that silencers were not arms covered by the text of the Second Amendment. This is what was used by the three-judge panel to claim silencers are not protected arms. The Trump administration could easily reverse the claim, and state silencers are clearly arms protected by the Second Amendment. The US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Louisiana has until the 17 of March to send its response to the Fifth Circuit.
The Assistant US Attorney assigned to this case is David Berman. His history makes him an unlikely Second Amendment advocate. He spent time in venues hostile to the Second Amendment before coming to Louisiana. He was a law clerk for the US District Court in Massachusetts, then a year and a month in Louisiana, then in the District of Columbia for a year and seven months, then in the Greater New York City Area for two years and eleven months; then in the Southern District of California for one year and eight months, then back to Louisiana as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. His law degree is from the University of Oxford, in Oxfordshire, England. He appears to be an up-and-coming, talented, and ambitious attorney. As a skilled attorney, he should be able to argue either side of a case.
The Department of Justice oversees the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The Attorney General could issue instructions on the official position of the Executive branch to the Eastern District of Louisiana. An executive order has been issued by President Trump. This is a clear situation to show the execution of his order. Silencers are the weakest part of the National Firearms Act. They should never have been banned with excessive taxes and regulations. They should be protected under the text of the Second Amendment. The Bruen and Caetano decisions make this clear.
We should know the administration’s position on this issue by March 17th, but the US Attorney could ask for time to study it further.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
If it goes on my gun than it is part of the firearm and shall not be infringed, not because it is not something that doesn’t go bang, we can ban it. A forward grip is an accessory to what, a gun so that makes it part of it just as much as a sling or a scope.
In the words of Ope, nuff said.
It says Bondi’s plan is due by March 10th, so where is it?
“The Trump Administration issued an executive order to the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi to present a plan to review all legal actions and regulations affecting rights protected by the Second Amendment. The plan is due by March 10th.”
They can’t have it both ways: claiming they’re not arms, while simultaneously unconstitutionally taxing and regulating them by calling them arms, dangerous and unusual arms that require an extra background check, registration and an intentionally exorbitant tax, that when first established was 40 times the cost of the suppressor itself! If they’re not arms, then anyone can buy, build, make and sell them like any widget, screw or tool. They really are NOT arms, but a safety accessory and one which the government has no lawful authority over.
Two edged sword, and you are not on any winning side of it. 1) if it is a firearm, which we know it’s technically not, then it should be protected under 2A, but Fed will argue you still have path to obtain it, so no infringement. 2) if it’s deemed not a firearm and not protected by 2A, then Fed and States will regulate the item like bump stocks, or spray paint at HD, or buying fuel injector cleaner at Walmart. Perhaps Fed drops off completely but then States like NY CA CO WA will just make it impossible to… Read more »
In my view they should have been treated like a holster , cleaning rod ,powder horn an accessory
I’m waiting to get my pistol caliber suppressor when the tax stamp goes away.