Written by Benjamin Holt.
Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson lobbed a legal grenade on March 17, 2025, in United States v. Peterson, claiming firearm suppressors don’t get a Second Amendment shield. He’s arguing they’re not “arms” in the constitutional sense—just gear, not guns. Dropped this in a brief that’s got the gun crowd snarling, and it’s no small potatoes.
Suppressors—silencers to some, sound dampers to others—bolt onto a barrel to hush the bang and dim the flash when you pull the trigger. Simpson’s leaning on a Fifth Circuit ruling from February 6 that said the same: not arms, not protected. For anyone who’s had a boss nix a tool you swear by—say, a software tweak that saves your sanity—this hits that nerve, only it’s about firepower.
Peterson’s Bust Fuels the Fire
This all spins out of George Peterson’s mess—he’s a gun shop guy who got pinched for an unregistered suppressor after cops stormed his place. The National Firearms Act (NFA), a creaky 1934 law, says you’ve got to register those things and cough up a tax, but Peterson’s calling BS, saying it’s unconstitutional. DOJ’s not blinking—Simpson’s brief backs the Fifth Circuit’s line that a suppressor solo’s no weapon.
Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod laid it out back in February: without a gun, a suppressor’s a paperweight—useless for defending yourself. Simpson’s running with that, saying the NFA’s rules match up with old-school gun laws—like bans on sneaky carry—and don’t trash your rights. Gun Owners Foundation’s howling on X, though—suppressors are “absolutely ‘arms,’” they say, and banning accessories is a slippery slope to hell.
They’ve roped in other Second Amendment crews to toss an amicus brief Peterson’s way, yelling about dangerous precedents. I get it—think of a new rule at work that starts with one thing but ends up screwing your whole setup. This case isn’t just Peterson’s headache; it’s a line in the sand for every shooter who’s got one—or wants one.
Ruling’s Reach Goes Deep
The Fifth Circuit didn’t pull punches—suppressors don’t shoot, so they’re not “arms,” end of story. Simpson’s riding that wave, arguing the NFA’s been around since Capone’s day and hasn’t wrecked the Second Amendment yet. He’s framing it as no big deal—regulate the extras, keep the peace. Peterson’s not buying it; he’s fighting for his business and his neck.
Bigger picture’s a beast. Suppressors are legal in 42 states if you slog through NFA red tape—$200 a pop, fingerprints, the works. Gun nuts call them safety gear—cuts noise, saves your ears—while the anti crowd sees Hollywood hitmen. Web’s buzzing with numbers: over 2 million registered by last count, and that’s old data. DOJ’s play could cement this as a no-go zone, and that’s got folks edgy.
I’ve chewed this over with range rats—guys who say suppressors make hunting bearable, not a deaf sentence. But the NFA’s from an era of mobsters and trench coats, and it’s clunky now—most owners aren’t plotting hits. This fight’s not academic; it’s about where the line sits, and it’s itching for a redraw.
Our Take
Simpson’s brief’s a hard shove—Trump’s DOJ isn’t coddling suppressors, and that Fifth Circuit backstop’s a brick wall. Peterson’s in a bind; history’s not his buddy—the NFA’s dug in deep, and courts hate flipping old tables. Gun Owners Foundation’s got a loud beef, and they should—this could choke off gear in ways that bite hard.
Here’s my nickel: suppressors aren’t sidekicks; they’re part of the deal—quieting a shot’s still shooting. Calling them non-arms is lawyer talk that dodges the point. But the DOJ’s got a groove here—regulation’s held up forever, and Peterson’s uphill climb’s steep. This one’s a coin toss; if it sticks, gun folks lose ground. If it flips, it’s a win for the range rats.
