What the 5th Circuit’s Dangerous Decision in U.S. v. Peterson Means for Silencers & Gun Owners ~ VIDEO

The recent Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Peterson has ignited fresh debates over suppressors and the scope of the Second Amendment.

In a controversial decision, the court affirmed that suppressors are NOT “firearms” and thus are NOT protected under the Second Amendment. This ruling, if left to stand, could set a dangerous precedent, potentially giving the government broad authority to regulate, tax, or even ban critical firearm components under the guise that they are mere “accessories.”

Background: The Case Against Peterson

George Peterson, the owner of PDW Solutions, LLC, was charged in 2022 for possessing an unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Peterson argued that the NFA’s registration framework was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and that the ATF’s search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court ruled against him, and the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision earlier this year.

The crux of the legal fight is whether suppressors qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit ruled that they do not, relying on previous court decisions that treated suppressors as “accessories” rather than integral firearm components. However, this interpretation has been strongly challenged by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF), which are now pushing for a full en banc review of the case.

Why Suppressors Matter

Suppressors are not Hollywood silencers that turn gunfire into a whisper. Instead, they function much like a car muffler, reducing the sound of a gunshot to safer levels. Even the most advanced suppressors on the market only reduce a firearm’s report by about 20-30 decibels—far from the silent assassin imagery pushed by the media. In real-world applications, a suppressed AR-15 still registers at around 140 decibels—louder than an ambulance siren.

Beyond noise reduction, suppressors enhance firearm safety. They mitigate hearing damage for shooters, reduce recoil, and improve accuracy. Many countries, including several in Europe, actually encourage suppressor use as a public safety measure. The U.S. government, however, continues to regulate them under the outdated and cumbersome NFA, making ownership unnecessarily difficult.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Abyss 5.56 Rifle Suppressor - Abyss 5.56 Suppressor With 1.375-24 Hub, Emt Included	Brownells.com	$ 784.99
	Maxim Defense DSX-D 5.56 Suppressor	Rainier Arms	$ 1255.50
	Otter Creek Labs POLK556 Polonium K 5.56 Suppressor	Shooters Choice	$ 529.99
	Ar-15 Suppressor Optimized Barrel 5.56 - Suppressor Optimized Barrel 5.56 12.5'''' Carbine Length Blk	Brownells.com	$ 166.99

The 5th Circuit’s Dangerous Logic

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning is deeply flawed. The court ruled that because a suppressor is not “necessary” for a firearm to function, it is not protected under the Second Amendment. By this logic, nearly every firearm component—magazines, barrels, scopes, stocks—could be stripped of constitutional protection, making them ripe for regulation or outright bans.

This decision flies in the face of historical precedent. The Supreme Court has made clear in D.C. v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment covers weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes. Suppressors are undeniably in common use, with over four million legally owned in the United States. More importantly, they directly contribute to the effective and safe use of firearms, which the Supreme Court has affirmed is a protected right.

What’s Next? The Fight Continues

The FPC and FPCAF have stepped in to support Peterson’s appeal for an en banc review, where the full Fifth Circuit would reconsider the case. If granted, this would provide an opportunity to overturn the flawed panel decision and affirm that suppressors—and, by extension, other firearm components—are protected under the Second Amendment.

Should the Fifth Circuit refuse to rehear the case, the battle will likely move to the Supreme Court.

Given the Court’s recent history of strengthening Second Amendment protections, there is a real chance they could take up the case and strike down the NFA’s suppressor regulations altogether.

What’s at Stake for Gun Owners?

If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, the consequences could be severe. The decision would embolden anti-gun lawmakers and regulators to target other firearm components. If suppressors are not “arms,” what about magazines? Optics? Adjustable stocks? Trigger upgrades? If these items are classified as mere “accessories,” they could become subject to the same unconstitutional regulations and restrictions.

Moreover, the ruling reinforces the NFA’s fundamentally flawed framework, which has long been weaponized against law-abiding gun owners. The ATF’s history of arbitrary and often contradictory enforcement actions makes it clear that gun control proponents see regulatory overreach as a means to erode the Second Amendment piece by piece.

How You Can Support the Fight

Gun owners must remain vigilant and engaged. Organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation are leading the legal fight against unconstitutional gun laws, but they need grassroots support. If you believe suppressors should be protected under the Second Amendment, consider joining or donating to pro-gun legal groups that are actively challenging these laws in court.

Additionally, spreading awareness is critical. Share this case with friends, family, and fellow gun owners. Contact your representatives and demand that they support legislation like the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them like regular firearm components.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Peterson is an alarming attack on Second Amendment rights. By claiming suppressors are mere “accessories,” the court has opened the door for broader restrictions on other critical firearm components. But the fight is far from over. With legal challenges mounting and strong backing from the pro-gun community, there is hope that this dangerous precedent will be overturned.

Now is the time for gun owners to stand together and push back against unconstitutional restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect only some parts of a firearm—it protects the right to keep and bear arms, full stop. If we allow suppressors to be stripped of that protection, what’s next?

DOJ Lawyer Argues Suppressors are Not Protected Arms Then Reverses Course