Buckeye Reporter

In a recent development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has withdrawn its earlier opinion in the case of United States v. Peterson, which had ruled that firearm suppressors are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. This decision may signal future changes in how suppressors are regulated under the National Firearms Act and their recognition as protected arms.

Previously, in February, the Fifth Circuit upheld a conviction for possession of an unregistered suppressor. The court concluded that suppressors were not necessary for a firearm's operation and were only "compatible" accessories, thus not covered by the Second Amendment. This conclusion relied on past decisions treating suppressors as mere accessories without applying tests from U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and Bruen, which extend protection to bearable arms and require historical tradition to validate regulations under the Second Amendment.

The court's withdrawal of its opinion was announced with a simple statement: “Pursuant to the court’s directive, the opinion in this case has been withdrawn.” Prior to this decision, the Department of Justice had requested time to reassess its stance on suppressors and later acknowledged them as protected by the Second Amendment but did not fully oppose their regulation under the National Firearms Act.

The future course of this case remains uncertain, but there is hope for a comprehensive review that recognizes constitutional protections for firearm suppressors.