Supreme Court 6-3 Decision Used To End Suppressor Purchase & Possession Bans! DOJ Gives Support!

Published on June 2, 2025
Duration: 8:57

A recent DOJ brief in US v. Peterson has shifted the federal stance, now recognizing suppressors as protected arms under the Second Amendment. This development is being leveraged in the Morris v. Raul lawsuit challenging Illinois' statewide ban on suppressor purchase and possession. The state argued suppressors are not 'arms,' but the DOJ's new position directly contradicts this, asserting that outright bans on suppressors are unconstitutional.

Quick Summary

A recent DOJ brief in US v. Peterson now recognizes suppressors as protected arms under the Second Amendment, asserting that outright bans are unconstitutional. This shift is being used in the Morris v. Raul lawsuit to challenge Illinois' statewide ban on suppressor purchase and possession.

Chapters

  1. 00:00DOJ Brief Impacts Suppressor Ban Lawsuit
  2. 00:14Sponsor: Attorneys on Retainer
  3. 01:00Morris v. Raul: Illinois Suppressor Ban Challenge
  4. 01:47Shift in DOJ Stance: US v. Peterson Brief
  5. 02:34Plaintiffs' Argument: Suppressors as Common Arms
  6. 02:48Illinois' Argument: Suppressors Not 'Arms'
  7. 04:22Case Hearing and PIKA Law Developments
  8. 05:08Illinois' Supplemental Notice: Fifth Circuit Case
  9. 05:15Background of US v. Peterson Case
  10. 06:22DOJ Shifts Course on Suppressor Protection
  11. 07:05Plaintiffs Leverage New DOJ Brief
  12. 07:20New Notice Filed in Suppressor Case
  13. 07:45Impact of DOJ's Reversed Opinion
  14. 08:18Watching Future Developments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

The DOJ's brief in US v. Peterson is significant because it explicitly states that the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories like suppressors, and that outright bans on them would be unconstitutional. This marks a notable shift in the federal government's stance on suppressor rights.

How is the DOJ's new position being used in the Morris v. Raul lawsuit?

In the Morris v. Raul lawsuit challenging Illinois' suppressor ban, plaintiffs are using the DOJ's recent brief as crucial support. They argue that since the federal government now acknowledges suppressors as protected arms, the state's ban is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

What was Illinois' primary argument against suppressors in the Morris v. Raul case?

Illinois' main argument was that suppressors are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment. They contended that suppressors are mere accessories, not weapons themselves, not used for self-defense, and not essential for a firearm's function, thus not falling under constitutional protection.

What is the US v. Peterson case about?

The US v. Peterson case originated from an ATF raid where an unregistered solvent trap was found, leading to an NFA violation conviction. The case evolved into a Second Amendment challenge against the NFA, specifically concerning the classification of suppressors as protected arms.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Armed Scholar

View all →