HUGE BREAKING NEWS: DOJ MAKES MAJOR PRO-2A CONCESSION…

Published on May 24, 2025
Duration: 27:53

This video analyzes a significant brief filed by the Trump administration's Department of Justice in the US v. Peterson case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief concedes that suppressors are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. It also acknowledges the right to acquire and train with firearms. However, the brief weakly defends the constitutionality of the NFA's registration and taxation scheme for suppressors, drawing criticism for its arguments.

Quick Summary

The Trump administration's DOJ filed a brief conceding that suppressors are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. This is a major shift and a significant win for gun rights advocates, though the brief weakly defends the NFA's taxation and registration scheme.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Breaking News: DOJ Files Brief in Peterson Case
  2. 00:48Trump Administration's Position on Suppressors
  3. 01:07Fifth Circuit Case Overview: US v. Peterson
  4. 02:09Biden DOJ's Initial Arguments
  5. 03:57DOJ Reconsiders Position on Suppressors
  6. 05:05Major Concessions in Favor of Second Amendment
  7. 07:24The Good News: Suppressors Are Arms
  8. 09:49DOJ Admits Suppressors Cannot Be Banned
  9. 11:02Right to Acquire and Train with Firearms
  10. 13:19Benefits of Suppressors: Hearing Protection & Accuracy
  11. 15:16Weaknesses in the DOJ's Defense of the NFA
  12. 16:22Justifying the NFA: Registration and Tax
  13. 18:01The $200 Tax on Suppressors: Legal Challenges
  14. 19:54Footnote 9: Criminal Misuse Argument
  15. 23:54No Historical Tradition of Firearms Registration
  16. 24:40Why the DOJ Might Be Mouthing the Words
  17. 26:00Tension in DOJ's Position and Future Outlook

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the significance of the DOJ's brief in the US v. Peterson case?

The Trump administration's DOJ filed a brief conceding that suppressors are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. This is a major shift and a significant win for gun rights advocates, though the brief weakly defends the NFA's taxation and registration scheme.

What did the DOJ admit about suppressors and the Second Amendment?

The DOJ admitted that suppressors are 'arms' under the text of the Second Amendment and that restrictions on their possession burden the right to bear arms. They also stated that a ban on suppressors or similar accessories would be unconstitutional.

What are the arguments against the NFA's taxation and registration of suppressors?

The DOJ's brief itself presents weak arguments for the NFA's constitutionality, citing cases that question targeted taxes on constitutional rights. The speaker criticizes the DOJ's reasoning, particularly footnote 9, which absurdly contrasts the 'criminal misuse' of firearms and suppressors.

What are the practical benefits of suppressors mentioned in the DOJ brief?

The brief highlights that suppressors limit firearm noise, reduce hearing damage, aid communication, improve accuracy, reduce recoil and muzzle rise, and facilitate target shooting. The US Marine Corps even began issuing them to infantry units in 2020.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →