Pam Bondi's Very Bad Week So Far

Published on March 19, 2025
Duration: 8:19

This video discusses the Department of Justice's brief in United States v. Peterson, arguing that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. The speaker highlights the DOJ's stance, which contradicts federal law defining firearm mufflers/silencers as firearms, and criticizes this position as a step towards civilian disarmament. The content is presented by William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law.

Quick Summary

The Department of Justice, in the US v. Peterson case, argued that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment, classifying them as mere attachments rather than 'arms.' This stance contradicts federal law (18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)) which defines firearm silencers as firearms, raising concerns about civilian disarmament efforts.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction & Location
  2. 00:17Pam Bondi's Rough Week
  3. 01:01Sponsor: Right to Bear
  4. 01:35DOJ Brief in US v. Peterson
  5. 02:00Background of US v. Peterson Case
  6. 02:19DOJ Opposes En Banc Review
  7. 03:08DOJ's Argument: Suppressors Not Protected
  8. 03:38DOJ's Interpretation of 'Arm'
  9. 04:14Ludicrous Analogy: Pillow/Bottle
  10. 04:37DOJ: Issue Not Important
  11. 05:04New DOJ Like Old DOJ
  12. 05:25Federal Law Definition of Firearm
  13. 06:08Implications for NFA and Bans
  14. 06:30Pam Bondi's Week Recap
  15. 07:13Case Recap & Links
  16. 07:21California CCW Conference Thanks
  17. 07:37Contact Washington Gun Law
  18. 07:54Conclusion & Safety Reminder

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DOJ's argument regarding suppressors and the Second Amendment in the US v. Peterson case?

In the US v. Peterson case, the Department of Justice argued that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. Their brief opposed en banc review, suggesting suppressors are merely attachments and not 'arms' in the constitutional sense, despite federal law defining them as firearms.

How does federal law define a firearm in relation to suppressors?

According to 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3), the term 'firearm' explicitly includes 'any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.' This definition directly contrasts with the DOJ's argument that suppressors are not protected arms.

Why is the DOJ's stance in US v. Peterson considered controversial by gun rights advocates?

Gun rights advocates find the DOJ's stance controversial because it appears to contradict existing federal law and is seen as a step towards civilian disarmament. The argument that suppressors are not 'arms' is viewed as a dangerous legal interpretation.

What is the significance of the US v. Peterson case for suppressor owners?

The US v. Peterson case is significant because a Fifth Circuit panel ruled suppressors are not Second Amendment protected. The DOJ's opposition to en banc review, and their argument against suppressor protection, could set a precedent impacting the rights of suppressor owners nationwide.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →