DOJ Goes All In on Defending the NFA

Published on October 15, 2025
Duration: 10:07

The Department of Justice is actively defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) in the case of United States v. Peterson. Their arguments, particularly referencing Bruen's footnote 9, characterize NFA suppressor regulations as a 'shall issue' licensing regime, implying they are constitutional. The DOJ also distinguishes suppressors as 'non-essential firearm accessories' compared to 'ordinary firearms' like handguns, suggesting different legal analyses apply.

Quick Summary

The Department of Justice is vigorously defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) in the US v. Peterson case, arguing that suppressors are 'non-essential firearm accessories' and that NFA regulations are constitutional, drawing parallels to 'shall issue' licensing regimes discussed in Bruen's footnote 9.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: DOJ's NFA Defense
  2. 01:08Case Overview: US v. Peterson & NFA Challenge
  3. 01:20Challenged Statutes: 26 USC Sections
  4. 02:01DOJ Opposition to En Banc Review
  5. 02:32DOJ's Arguments: Weak and Dangerous
  6. 03:08Argument 1: Precedent and McCroy
  7. 03:57Argument 2: Bruen Footnote 9 & Suppressor View
  8. 04:16Bruen Footnote 9 Analysis
  9. 05:15NFA as Shall Issue Regime
  10. 06:15Danger of DOJ's Statements
  11. 07:12Coons v. New Jersey & DOJ's View on Suppressors
  12. 07:47Suppressors vs. Quintessential Self-Defense Weapons
  13. 08:06NFA Targets Non-Essential Accessories
  14. 09:03Conclusion: DOJ's Stance on NFA Dismantling

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Department of Justice's stance on the National Firearms Act (NFA) in the US v. Peterson case?

The DOJ is actively and vehemently defending the NFA, particularly its regulations on suppressors. They oppose en banc review in the Fifth Circuit, arguing the NFA is constitutional and that suppressors are 'non-essential firearm accessories' subject to valid regulation.

How does the DOJ use Bruen's footnote 9 to defend the NFA?

The DOJ interprets Bruen's footnote 9, which discussed 'shall issue' licensing regimes, as a basis to argue that the NFA's suppressor regulations are constitutional. They liken the NFA's licensing scheme to these 'shall issue' frameworks, suggesting it imposes only objective criteria.

What is the DOJ's view on suppressors compared to other firearms?

The DOJ distinguishes suppressors from 'ordinary firearms' like handguns, labeling them 'non-essential firearm accessories' that are 'uniquely adaptable to criminal misuse.' This distinction is used to justify different legal analyses and regulatory burdens.

What specific statutes are being challenged in the US v. Peterson case?

The legal challenge in United States v. Peterson targets federal regulations under 26 U.S.C. sections 5841, 5861D, and 5871, which pertain to the registration and regulation of firearms, including suppressors, under the National Firearms Act.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →