Hey guys, we have a huge development that took place not too long ago today out of the Department of Justice. And this could lead to very good things as a result of Donald Trump’s executive order on the Second Amendment to which Pam Bondi seems to be now implementing changes. Just two days ago, I told you that the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi was claiming in a court case that suppressors, silencers, were not protected by the Second Amendment, right? Crazy. We thought absolutely insane. Some people were cheering, but they didn’t realize that the goal of this movement by the Biden administration was to ban them outright, which would happen if they were removed from the definition of firearm, then they would be banned not only federally, they could be banned by the state, the county, the city, the town, blah blah blah blah blah.

Well, we have some more information about that, and it seems that the Department of Justice higher-ups have seen some of the videos here on YouTube. From what I’m hearing, believe it or not, I’m hearing that they felt a lot of pressure. They were caught off guard and didn’t like the heat that they were receiving from people on YouTube and comments and stuff like that and phone calls and people reaching out to senators and representatives. And some of the pressure that they felt has changed their official view here. This is a pretty big turnabout. Now, this also appears to be a change of heart that, like I said, was a direct result of Pam Bondi’s response to Donald Trump’s executive order on the Second Amendment.

And this could be a great sign for other pending cases moving forward as well. Let’s discuss. And before we dive in, take a second here to subscribe to the channel. It’s a red button below me. It costs zero dollars and zero cents. Just gets you into this growing freedom family for free. And if you believe in protecting your constitutional rights, this is the place for you. A shout out to today’s sponsor, Attorneys on Retainer. If you’re serious about self-defense, then get serious about defending yourself with attorneys on retainer. AOR is not backed by any insurance company.

They’re a real law firm. They don’t have to follow the same restrictions and limitations as insurance-backed companies. Plus, they’re the only law firm that only deals with self-defense cases in the country. That is all they deal with. AOR will defend all types of criminal cases so they don’t deny coverage. And the attorney-client privilege starts immediately because when you remember and you have to call their emergency number to the strike force, there’s an attorney answering that. So you’re covered. And if you can reasonably and in good faith assert that you acted in self-defense or self-defense of others, they’ll cover you.

Plus, if you join now, I can save you $50 off your individual sign-up fee or $25 off your family plan sign-up fee only if you use my link down below and enter in the code GNG. Get serious about your own self-defense. Get attorneys on retainer. I have spent time with these folks. I have broken bread with them. They are truly good people who believe in defending those that defend themselves. All right. Earlier today, I got word from both Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition about this case, which is the United States versus George Peterson.

If you haven’t seen the video I did two days ago, I’ll link it here. I’ll float a card above, so check it out. And wait till you hear what the Department of Justice just did. First, I’ll give you some background on the case so you know what’s going on in case you haven’t been following this case on this channel for the last couple years. In 1934, we know that Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, unconstitutional BS. It’s 27 U.S.C. 5801. And among other things, it regulates firearm suppressors, silencers in the law, because that’s what the patent was.

And it imposed registration and tax payment requirements. And under federal law, the terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended for the use in such assembly or fabrication. That’s the legal jargon of it. And in 2022, the United States of America, the government, criminally charged George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, with possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor in violation of 26 U.S.C.

5841, 5861 Delta, and 5871 laws. As an affirmative defense to that charge, Mr. Peterson challenged the NFA’s constitutionality with respect to its regulation of suppressors as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In 2023, Mr. Peterson entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit review the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the indictment and to suppress the evidence. Well, in February 2025, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Peterson’s motion to dismiss what we’re all saying is a very flawed and dangerous decision.

And recognizing the danger, the panel, now recognizing the danger that this three-judge panel’s decision represents to the Second Amendment and our rights, Firearms Policy Coalition agreed to financially back some world-class counsel for Peterson’s appeal. One of which is my friend, the president of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation, Cody Wisniewski, the same Cody Wisniewski that you see here once a month on our Freedom Under Fire series, if you haven’t checked that out. I’ll pin the playlist above, but he’s with us every month talking about what Firearms Policy Coalition is doing every single month, and they’re helping Peterson here on this case.

Now, they’re helping to petition the Fifth Circuit for an en banc, which means a full court hearing, and a reversal of the panel decision, as well as a decision that the NFA’s registration and taxation regulations are unconstitutional with respect to a firearm suppressor. This is a huge case, and it just got much bigger when you hear what the DOJ just decided to do. Now, still in the background, earlier this month Peterson filed his petition for a rehearing for en banc, and the response from the Department of Justice was, Hey, you know what? We still say that suppressors are not weapons, they’re not firearms, because they don’t do anything to make a gun function, therefore they’re an accessory, and they’re not protected by the Second Amendment, except the congressional definition of firearm has silencer in it.

So the DOJ’s filing was, in effect, violating federal law, okay? So this case squarely presents the question of whether firearm components are arms subject to the Second Amendment, and any decision in this case has the potential to directly impact the regulation of suppressors under the National Firearms Act, as well as items such as ammunition magazines, barrel sites, and even triggers or firing pins, because those are accessories. If left to stand, the panel’s decision could have an extraordinary effect on the permitting of government to ban anything that is not an actual firearm, from bullets to magazines to sites, you name it, whatever.

If it’s an accessory and doesn’t cause the gun to go bang in and of itself, then they could just ban these things. Now, it’s, as you know, violations of the National Firearms Act carry a 10-year federal imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 for each offense. Alright, now that you know what’s going on, that is the background, what did the DOJ do today? Well, the Acting U.S. Attorney’s Office in Louisiana has said that they were asked to file a motion to reconsider. And if you don’t deal with court and courtroom procedure, this might just sound like, okay, big deal.

But for the Department of Justice, an Acting U.S. Attorney, to make a filing saying, this is our stance in this lawsuit, and then two days later have to come back to that same judge and say, your honor, my boss said that I should file this motion to reconsider. I done messed up. And that’s exactly what happened here. Basically, the folks at the top of the Department of Justice were not happy with the bad press that they were getting because of this U.S. Attorney, Acting U.S. Attorney’s decision to make that statement saying, suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Now, I also hear that the top brass were caught off guard by this filing stating that suppressors were not covered by the Second Amendment. And here we are less than 48 hours later from, actually less than 24 hours later from me fielding that phone call. Here we are with this filing by the Department of Justice. Here it is on the screen. It says the United States of America moves this court to delay its ruling on defendant appellate George Peterson’s petition for rehearing en banc for 30 days to allow the government an opportunity to further consider its position.

On February 6, 2025, this court affirmed Peterson’s conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of those laws holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. After affirmance, Peterson filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was supported by Amici-Kire briefings. On March 18, 2025, the government filed an opposition to Peterson’s petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel’s holding was correct. The government now requests, again 48 hours later, that this court delay its ruling on Peterson’s petition for 30 days to allow it an opportunity to further consider its position. On February 7, 2025, the president issued an Executive Order 14206 protecting Second Amendment rights, directing the Attorney General to examine all executive actions to present a proposed plan to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

In implementing that order, the Department of Justice is reevaluating its litigation positions regarding silencers. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that the court delay ruling on Peterson’s motion for rehearing en banc for 30 days. At that time, the government will inform the court of the status of its review and, if warranted, move for leave to file an amended response. The government has contacted counsel for Peterson, who stated he does not oppose the motion. Guys, this is huge. This is a lot of legal jargon, I get it. But this is the Department of Justice tucking its tails between its legs, saying, we have a change in leadership, and we don’t realize that what we’ve been pushing for three years in this case might not be the right thing.

Give us 30 days so that we can tell you how we’re going to react post this Executive Order. Now, this isn’t the only case they’ve done this on, this is like the third or fourth case that I’m aware of, where they’ve asked for this extension, leaving the DOJ room to change their opinion on this. Now, imagine if the Department of Justice comes in 30 days from now with a revised brief, and both Peterson and the government tell the Fifth Circuit that suppressors are protected arms. Now, this is the makeup to be game-changing. And once we get the new Solicitor General confirmed in the United States Senate, these types of filings can kick into high gear, and the Department of Justice has the opportunity to reverse their stance in many, many Second Amendment challenges that are currently underway in the federal court system.

This is a pretty big development, and we’ve been keeping a close eye on this, and I’m going to continue to do so, so make sure you’re subscribed to this channel and don’t miss any updates. If you believe in the right to self-defense, hit that like button and share the video. A huge shout-out to Attorneys on Retainer for supporting this channel. Check them out and save $50 off your individual sign-up fee and $25 off of your family sign-up fee only by using my link down below and my code GNG. That’s key. You have to use that to save the money.

Stay safe, stay armed, and stay free. I will see you on the next one. God bless America. Take care, everybody. Thank you. [tr:trw].

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