Y’all ready for this? The Justice Department has been exposed again. That’s three times here in about a week and a half on this channel we’ve exposed the DOJ and what their true intentions seem to be. In a case covered by this channel on May 24th, I told you that the Department of Justice had conceded that suppressors are arms and thus protected by the Second Amendment. And that was huge. Or so we thought. Well, it now seems they only did that to defend the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act Tax and Registration Scheme as the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of that leftover registry now that the tax has been removed are now moving forward.

Was this part of their plan all along? Listen and you tell me. You’re going to want to watch this entire video. Guys, like the video, share the video, and subscribe to the channel if you want information like this on a regular basis. All this is happening. Meanwhile, the Trump administration celebrated a complete deregulation of suppressors when gun owners of America successfully had that inserted into the one big beautiful bill. What the hell is DOJ really doing here? Well, for the first time ever, the NFA licensing scheme has been called presumptively constitutional by a federal court.

First time ever. Why? Because the court said it operates like a shall issue licensing regime. Now, the courts are always twisting and manipulating words to make us less free. And what happened yesterday afternoon is no different. And what if I told you that the Fifth Circuit just handed down a ruling on suppressors that could change the landscape for the Second Amendment going forward. One that fires policy coalition is calling flawed and dangerous. Today, we’re going to break down exactly what happened in United States versus Peterson. Why the court sided with the government and why groups like FPC say this decision put your rights in jeopardy.

Now stick around because this is a big one. What’s up, everybody? My name is Jared. This is Guns and it’s the premier source for Second Amendment news that you may not hear anywhere else. If you want to stay up to date on everything happening in our Second Amendment rights, you have found your home. Make sure to subscribe and turn the bell notification on so that you don’t miss any updates like this. Like I said, today I’m digging into the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in US versus Peterson. Now the case centered around suppressors, sometimes people still call them silencers, which is what they were registered as the trademark and whether or not the National Firearms Acts registration requirements violate the Second Amendment.

Now the ruling dropped on August 27th, 2025 and Firearms Policy Coalition wasted no time blasting it as deeply flawed. Let’s walk through this case to discuss the court’s reasoning and why FPC says this decision is very dangerous. George Peterson ran a firearms business out of his home in Louisiana called PDW Solutions. In 2022 ATF agents raided his property after months of investigation. During that search they found a homemade suppressor locked in his closet safe. It wasn’t serialized, it wasn’t registered and it had been built from a kit. Now a federal grand jury indicted him under the National Firearms Act specifically for possession of an unregistered suppressor under 26 USC section 5841, 5861 Delta and 5871.

Those are the three federal laws they jammed him up on. Now Peterson fought back with two motions. Number one, a Second Amendment challenge arguing that the NFA suppressor regulation scheme is unconstitutional. And number two, a Fourth Amendment challenge seeking to suppress the evidence seized in a raid claiming the warrant was defective. Now the district court denied both motions and Peterson entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal those two issues, which he did. Now the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and ruled against him on both counts.

Number one, on the Second Amendment claim, the court assumed without deciding that suppressors are arms under the Second Amendment. But there’s always a but with these people. It’s said that the NFA’s licensing scheme is quote, presumptively constitutional because it operates like a shall issue regime. The reasoning comes from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin decision in 2022, which struck down may issue gun licensing, but gave breathing room for shall issue systems that use clear objective standards. Now the NFA requires fingerprints, photos, a background check and a $200 tax.

And it only denies applications if possession would otherwise be illegal. It qualifies as a shall issue system. What a bunch of BS. And since Peterson never even applied for registration, never paid the tax and admitted he just forgot the paperwork. The court said he had no evidence that the law actually denied him his rights. And number two, on the Fourth Amendment claim, Peterson argued the search warrant lacked probable cause. The court applied the good faith exception, meaning that even if the warrant affidavit was weak, ATF agents reasonably relied on it.

And because the affidavit contained enough indica of probable cause, like evidence of unreported gun sales and false statements to ATF, the court said the suppression wasn’t justified. In short, the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction and rejected Peterson’s Second Amendment argument and kept the suppressor evidence in. But now that the taxes removed effective January 1st of 2026, that should destroy their little anti-gun decisions, shouldn’t it? You would think so. The Firearms Policy Coalition immediately called this a deeply flawed ruling. And here’s why. Here’s what they said. First, they said, suppressors are clearly arms.

They attach to firearms, they provide practical benefits for self-defense, hunting and hearing protection, and have historically been part of lawful gun ownership. Even the government conceded this point. And they’re even defined by Congress as firearms, yet the court didn’t firmly recognize it. It sidestepped the question. Second, the shall issue presumption was stretched. Burden said, shall issue licensing for carrying firearms might be constitutional, but applying that to the NFA tax and registration scheme is a huge leap. And unlike a quick background check for carry permits, which are also unconstitutional and failed a Bruin test, the NFA requires months of processing, fingerprinting photographs, and a payment of a tax.

That’s not the same thing. Third, the court ignored the real burdens. Peterson argued the NFA suppressor applications can take eight months or more. The government claimed it’s now just a few days. The Fifth Circuit said Peterson didn’t prove it either way, so the court defaulted to assuming the government was right. That’s dangerous. The FPC says this glosses over how ordinary Americans are actually blocked from exercising their rights by excessive wait times and costs every single day. And finally, this decision leaves the door open for abuse. I mean, the government wouldn’t do that, would they? And by saying the NFA is presumptively constitutional as a shall issue regime, the court essentially gave the ATF cover to keep enforcing suppressor restrictions with little judicial oversight.

And what does this mean going forward? Remember, I said that there are two huge major lawsuits challenging what is left of the NFA after the One Big Beautiful Bill, now One Big Beautiful Act, was signed into law. The tax is gone. And because the Supreme Court even said the NFA is a tax scheme, when the tax is gone, the rest of it must fall. But now it looks like DOJ has set themselves up, at least to try to defend that in keeping the registry in place. This case has major implications for suppressors, for cans.

The ruling keeps them trapped under the NFA. And if you build one or own one without paperwork, you risk some serious federal prison time. For the NFA itself, this is one of the first appellate level cases to say outright that the NFA’s requirements are presumptively constitutional under Bruin. That sets precedent that other courts could follow and should follow. Now, the future challenges to this, the court left the door open. It said another litigant might succeed with a better record showing that wait times or fees are abusive. But Peterson wasn’t that guy since he never even applied.

Groups like FPC are signaling that they won’t let this stand unchallenged. They’re preparing for the right plaintiff with the right facts to take another shot by striking down suppressor restrictions. If you think you are that plaintiff, reach out to these groups and offer to help them in suing the government. Join all these groups. Support those that support us. But where does this leave us now? For now, suppressors remain heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Fifth Circuit leaned on the shall issue concept from Bruin to keep the law alive, and the Firearms Policy Coalition says that’s a dangerous misapplication of the Second Amendment.

This case shows exactly why we need vigilance. The government is always looking for ways to twist Supreme Court precedent to keep unconstitutional laws alive. And unless groups like FPC, GOA, SAF, and others keep fighting in court, and unless we stay informed, our rights will be chipped away case by case. What do you think about this? Should suppressor be treated like any other firearm accessory, or should they stay under the NFA? Drop your thoughts in the comments down below, and if you found this breakdown helpful, hit the like button, share the video, and make sure you’re subscribed to Guns N’ Gadgets for the premiere source for Second Amendment news that you won’t hear anywhere else.

And remember guys and gals, be safe. Save vigilance. And most of all, stay free. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.